Randwick Local Planning Panel (Public) Meeting

 

 

 

Thursday 8 April 2021       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick Local Planning Panel (Public)

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Local Planning Panel (Public) meeting

will be held in the Online via Microsoft Teams on

Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 1pm

 

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of RLPP by Councillors and members of the public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded.

Development Application Reports

D18/21         5 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/523/2020)....................................................................... 1     

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning

 

 

Development Application Report No. D18/21

Subject:        5 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/523/2020)

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of the existing three (3) storey residential flat building and construction of a (4) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping and parking together with works relating to Sydney Water infrastructure. Ward:                             North Ward Applicant:                      MKD Architects Owner:                           Strata Plan 15575 Cost of works:               $3,383,396 Reason for referral:        The development is subject to SEPP 65 as the building is 3 or more storeys and contains at least 4 dwellings and 86 unique submissions by way of objection were received.   Recommendation That the RLPP refuse consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA523/2020 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping and Parking together with works relating to Sydney Water infrastructure. at No. 5 Baden Street Coogee, for the following reasons: 1.         The proposal does not comply the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development resulting in adverse amenity impacts.   2.         The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, clause 4.3 Height of Buildings, and the variation is not within the public interest as the development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the standard and the zone.   3.         The proposal does not satisfy the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, 4.6. Exceptions to Development Standards, in that the request for the height of buildings variation is not well founded and does not demonstrate a public benefit.   4.         The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, 4.4. Floor Space Ratio development standard.   5.         The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, Clause 4.6.(3) in that no submission with regards to the variation pursuant to Clause 4.4 has been received. 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.   6.         The proposal is does not comply the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 with regards to;   ·      External wall height. ·      Basement parking configuration. ·      Visual amenity impacts and excessive bulk and scale. ·      Impacts upon view sharing. ·      Foreshore Scenic Protection Area   7.         The proposal fails to show regard for environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments.   8.         Pursuant to Section 4.15 Evaluation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Paragraph (c) the suitability of the site for the development as not been adequately demonstrated by the proposal.   9.         The proposal is not in the public interest due to the excessive and numerous deviations from relevant plans and policies.   10.        The proposal is not in the public interest as there is no certainty in the information provided by the applicant with regards to the relocation of the sewer infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as:

 

·      The development is subject to SEPP 65, and

·      86 unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping and parking together with works relating to Sydney Water infrastructure. The key issues associated with the proposal relate to:

 

·      The Clause 4.6 requested variation to the development standard for building height is not well founded and not within the public interest.

·      The Floor Space Ratio of the development does not comply and a request to vary the standard pursuant to clause 4.6 of the RLEP was not submitted.

·      Non-compliant external wall height, with the uppermost level reading as a full storey and not contained within a habitable roof.

·      Inadequate solar access to adjoining developments.

·      View Sharing Impacts.

·      Basement parking layout.

·      Impacts upon Sydney Water Infrastructure.

·      Minimal internal floor to floor heights that will be unlikely to achieve required floor to ceiling heights.

·      Overall bulk and scale resulting in adverse amenity impacts upon the coastal environment and neighbouring properties.

·      Site suitability and response to physical constraints

 

The proposal is subsequently recommended for refusal as per the reasons outlined within this report.

 

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is legally known as Lot 3, DP8843 and is commonly described as 5 Baden Street Coogee. The site is 591.8m², is regular in shape and has a 14.935m frontage to Baden Street to the south and an average depth of. The site contains an existing three (3) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping.

 

The site slopes approximately 3m (7.5%) from north down to south with no other significant topographical features. Pedestrian access is gained from the Baden Street frontage, with limited vehicle access at the western portion of the front boundary.

 

The site is burdened by Sydney water infrastructure in the form of a 4500mm sewer pipe, traversing the site from north to south, approximately 4m-5m from the western boundary.

 

Figure 1: Site Survey

 

3.       Relevant history

 

A review of Council records indicates that thethrer are no prior works or applications relevant to the subject proposal.

 

The subject applications ongoing history is as follows:

 

·      The subject application was received by Council on 2 October 2020.

 

·      On 31 December 2020 concerns with regards to the initail proposal were forwarded to the applicant.

 

·      On 18 March 2021, Council received the responses to these concerns. The responses were not satisfactory in there addressing of the issues outlined (below is a summary of the issues in terms of planning and the responses received).

 

Request and Response Summary

Council has reviewed the above application and the following concerns will need to be addressed in order for Council to proceed with the assessment of your application:

 

·      The proposed GFA calculation is incorrect. A significant portion of the lobby area at each level is excluded from the FSR calculation.

 

Applicant Response

The lobbies are made up of vertical open style fire stairs used for vertical travel. Between levels and a lobby. Under the LEP definition, areas used for common vertical circulation, such as lifts and stairs, is explicitly excluded from the GFA calculation.

 

The remainder of the lobbies are treated as a breezeway, i.e. Subject to rain and weather, with the walls separating the units from these breezeway areas being the external wall of the building.

 

This is in line with the Court determination in the Case of ggd danks street pty ltd and cr danks street pty ltd v council of the city of sydney, where it was outlined that the external wall has a specific function  that distinguishes it from an internal wall, i.e. Weatherproofing.

 

As a result, the GFA calculations are considered accurate and correct. Refer to da‐ 7.01 for the amended GFA calculations with the reconfigured floor space due to the removal of the eastern dining room to the rear.

 

Assessing Officer Response

The proposal remains non-compliant in this regard. It is noted that no Clause 4.6 has been submitted to Council for assessment.

 

·      The floor to ceiling height of the development should be 3.1m and If the floor to ceiling height was to comply with the ADG control, this will result in a further increase to the overall Building height by 400mm.

 

Applicant Response

It is proposed to have off form concrete ceilings with recessed downlights / surface mounted lights in the main habitable areas, i.e. Living, dining and bedroom areas. This allows a zone of 250mm for the slab thickness over these zones and 50mm for a flooring finish. Refer to architectural drawings da‐5.05 & da‐5.06 for details.

 

Assessing Officer Response

This submission does not respond to the concerns raised and the floor to ceiling height remains a reason for refusal.

 

·      The external wall height of the proposed development does not comply with the DCP control of 10.5m and may result in view loss impacts to the neighbouring properties. Habitable roof space maybe considered provided it is contained wholly within the roof space and has a maximum floor space of 65% of the floor area of storey immediately below.  The proposed top level appears as a storey and is more than 65% of the story immediately below.

 

Applicant Response

The objective of this rule is to assist in the reduction of bulk and scale. The proposal meets the maximum fsr and height controls whilst allowing for an overall built form which is less bulky, shorter and retains a smaller footprint when compared to the existing building on site.

 

Assessing Officer Response

This submission does not respond to the concerns raised and the external wall height remains a reason for refusal.

 

·      It is recommended that an assessment be carryout to determine the impacts of development proposal on view loss and view sharing.  The NSW Land and Environment Court has developed a planning principle relating to view sharing based on the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140.  Where view loss impact is likely to occur, development proposals must address sub-section 5.6 – View sharing of the Randwick DCP 2013 as well as the aforementioned planning principle in detail.  

 

Applicant Response

The overall building footprint, height and bulk and scale is reduced when compared to the existing. Based on this view impacts will not occur.

 

Assessing Officer Response

The response is superficial and fails to address the principals of view sharing by not providing any assessment of any impacts resulting from the proposed development. The proposal relies on the existing development and the built form envelope of permissible development for analysis. The proposal remains unsatisifactory in this regard.

 

·      Parts of the building encroach on the side setback control. The proposed succulent roof built to the side boundaries should be deleted or setback 2.5m from the side boundaries.

 

Applicant Response

The encroachments within the 2.5m side setbacks have been removed along the east and west facades as per our sketch resubmission. We have also removed the pedestrian entry roof to the east.

 

Assessing Officer Response

The revisions successfully address this concern. No further investigation is required in this regard.

 

·      The basement configuration does not appear to comply with the vehicle access, maneuvering and exit due to the lift location.  However, this will need to be confirmed by Council’s Development Engineers.  

 

Applicants Response

Refer to traffic report and sweep path diagrams prepared by ttpa. The basement layout is compliant with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

Assessing Officer Response

Further comentary is contained within the report. In summary, the proposed amendments fail to satisfy this shortfall in the design of the basement parking.

 

·      You will need to demonstrate that 75% of the units received 2 hours of direct solar access into the main living area.  Floor plans and sun access matrix will assist in determining the total hours of solar access each unit receives.

 

Applicants Response

Solar access diagrams have been provided showing that 83%, i.e. 5 out of 6 units,achieve 2 hours of solar access to the main living area.

 

Assessing Officer Response

The proposal satisfies this concern. No further investigation is required.

 

·      Additional privacy measures should be provided to the private open space fronting Baden Street for the ground floor unit. A secondary private open space should be provided to the same unit from the kitchen area.

 

Applicants Response

A secondary private open space is provided from the secondary bedroom to the west. Additional privacy is be provided through additional screen planting.

 

Assessing Officer Response

The amendments in terms of the second private open space are satisfactory. The screen planting to increase privacy at the site frontage is considered a poor outcome and a haphazard solution to the privacy issues raised. This element remains outstanding.

 

NOTE: Further assessment of the elements amended by the applicant will be provided at the relevant headings within this report.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The applicant seeks approval for the demolition of the existing three (3) storey residential flat building  and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping and parking together with works relating to Sydney Water infrastructure. Specifically, the proposal includes:

 

Basement RL14370

The basement level includes:

·      A graded driveway opening out on to the site frontage and basement internals.

·      Nine (9) separate parking spaces,

·      A turntable adjacent to spaces 8 and 9,

·      Six (6) separate storage areas,

·      An 8.75m² pump well,

·      A separate bin room,

·      A separate access lift providing access to upper floors,

·      A separate set of stairs providing access to front external.

 

Figure 2: Basement Plan

 

Ground Floor RL17370

The ground floor level includes:

·      Two (2) separate units both containing:

o  Two (2) separate bedrooms,

o  Combined living, dining and kitchen area,

o  Separate bathrooms and ensuite,

o  A terrace on the site frontage (Unit 1) and at the rear (Unit 2)

o  An additional private open space on the west boundary,

o  Self - contained internal laundry.

 

·      A central breezeway and entry lobby adjacent to the lift and stairs.

·      Internal void providing access to the open areas on the eastern side boundary

 

Figure 3: Ground Floor Plan

 

First Floor Plan RL20370

The first-floor level includes:

·      Two (2) separate units both containing:

o  Two (2) separate bedrooms,

o  Combined living, dining and kitchen area,

o  Separate bathrooms and ensuite,

o  A terrace on the site frontage (Unit 1) and a Juliet balcony at the rear (Unit 2)

o  Self - contained internal laundry.

 

·      A central breezeway and entry lobby adjacent to the lift and stairs.

 

Figure 4: First Floor Plan

 

Second Floor Plan RL23285

The second floor incorporates a single unit with combined dining, kitchen and living room at the site frontage. A terrace on the front elevation accessed from this living area. Three (3) separate bedrooms a bathroom, additional terraces over the eastern void and at the rear, a Juliet balcony and additional ensuite. Externally, the planter, lift and breezeway are provided on the western elements of the building are also provided.

 

Figure 5: Second Floor Plan

 

 

Third Floor Plan RL26285

The third floor incorporates a single unit with combined dining, kitchen and living room at the site frontage. A terrace on the front elevation accessed from this living area. Three (3) separate bedrooms a bathroom, additional terraces over the eastern void and at the rear, a Juliet balcony and additional ensuite. Externally, the planter, lift and breezeway are provided on the western elements of the building are also provided.

 

Figure 6: Third Floor Plan

 

Externally, the proposal provides various areas of landscaping, retaining walls and private open spaces. These spaces are occupied by walkways and planters of various sizes and shapes.

 

5.       Notification

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 on 28 October 2020. The following submissions were received as a result of the first notification process:

 

·      Name and/or Address Withheld x 12 ·      64 Brook Street Coogee ·      156 Brook Street Coogee ·      28 Kirala Avenue Mangerton ·      328 Alison Road Randwick ·      Randwick heritage Action Group ·      8 Amour Avenue Maroubra ·      4/138 Beach Street Coogee ·      5/152 Brook Street Coogee ·      1 Berwick Street Coogee ·      5 Bloomfield Street Coogee ·      14 Hamilton Street Coogee ·      33 Arcadia Street Coogee ·      9/241 Clovelly Road Coogee ·      17 Cuzco Street South Coogee ·      117 Arden Street Coogee ·      4/7 Baden Street Coogee ·      13/51 Musgrave Street Yarralumla ·      127 Sutherland Street Mascot ·      3/3 Baden Street Coogee ·      5/3 Baden Street Coogee ·      8/7 Baden Street Coogee ·      5/101 Beach Street Coogee ·      6/101 Beach Street Coogee ·      2/37 Arcadia Street Coogee ·      4/37 Arcadia Street Coogee ·      5/37 Arcadia Street Coogee ·      19 Torwood Street San Souci ·      44 Fishery Road Currarong ·      14/36 Coogee Bay Road Randwick ·      17/31 Byron Street Randwick ·      4/1 Dove Lane Coogee ·      4/289 Arden Street Coogee ·      65 Coogee Bay Road Coogee ·      9/108 Brook Street Coogee ·      434 Avoca Street Coogee ·      11A Byron Street Coogee

·      22 Bay Street Coogee ·      70 Coogee Bay Road Coogee ·      4/101 Brook Street Coogee ·      25 Mount Street Coogee ·      116 Morna Street Newport ·      7/7 Baden Street Coogee ·      15 Byron Street Coogee ·      3 Glebe Street Glebe ·      1/18 Botany Street Randwick ·      286 Arden Street Coogee ·      320 Arden Street Coogee ·      3/70 Coogee Bay Road Randwick ·      2/277 Arden Street Coogee ·      Oak Street Clovelly ·      25 Mount Street Coogee ·      26/236-238 Rainbow Street Coogee ·      10 Battery Street Coogee ·      7 Close South Coogee ·      70 Ritchard Avenue Coogee ·      9/30 Arcadia Street Coogee ·      287 Malabar Road Maroubra ·      17/9 King Street Randwick ·      16/174-178 Brook Street Coogee ·      Leeton Avenue Coogee ·      40 Canberra Street Randwick ·      5/7 Baden Street Coogee ·      3/7 Baden Street Coogee ·      4 Bligh Place Randwick  ·      36A Coogee Street Coogee ·      2/68 Beach Street Coogee ·      16/98 Mount Street Coogee ·      2/23 Glen Avenue Randwick  ·      1/206 Oberon Street Coogee ·      202 Carrington Road Coogee ·      328 Alison Road Coogee ·      4/68 Cowper Road Coogee ·      30/6 Malabar Road South Coogee ·      6 Stanly Street Darlinghurst

 

Issue	Comment
Heritage item demolition The submissions raise concerns with regards to the demolition of the existing development as it should be a locally listed heritage item.	Response A review of Council records indicates the site is not a listed local or state significant heritage item and has no relationship with heritage plans and policies in addition to no nexus with the Burra Charter.   Further comment has been made by Council’s Heritage officer indicating there are no objections from Council’s professionals in terms of the development in relation to heritage.   It should be noted that an overwhelmingly significant number of objections were received raising this as an issue.
Notification Period The submissions raise concerns with the time available to comment on the proposal.	Response The proposal has been notified in accordance with Councils Plans and Policies and is consistent with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. This is also consistent with all applications within the Randwick LGA.   No further investigation is required in this regard.
Precedent Set The submissions raise concerns with the demolition of the existing development setting of a precedence for demolition of other like developments.	Response Each development is assessed on its own merits. The proposal sets no precedent. No further investigation is required.
Sewage Diversion The submissions raise concerns with regards to the Sydney Water infrastructure works and the diversion of the infrastructure beneath the subject site.	Response The objection is upheld.   These outstanding issues with the changes to Sydney Water infrastructure remain fatal to the application and the proposal is recommended for refusal.
Integrity of the DA Process The submission raises concerns with regards to the integrity of the application process within Council	Response Any concerns with regards to impropriety, conflicts of interest or shortfalls in the process should be reported immediately to the NSW Local Government Ombudsman.   No further investigations are required in this regard.
No Public Benefit The submissions raise concerns with regards to the lack of public benefit of the development.	Response The objection is upheld.   The development, with reference to the height variation and substantial changes to public infrastructure, has not demonstrated adequately a public benefit.   The departure from various controls and standards and their underlying objectives is at the expense of the public domain, public infrastructure and overall built form and existing streetscape character.   The failure to demonstrate the public benefit is fatal to the application as the proposal is on balance, not in the public interest.
Height Control variation The submissions raise concerns with regards to the Variation in the building height control.	Response The objection is upheld.   This element of the proposal is examined under the heading of Clause 4.6 Variation to the development standards.   In summary the proposed height of the development has not indicated a public benefit resulting from the breach and as such, is not supported. The failure of the documentation to achieve a consistency with the requirements in this regard is in itself, fatal to the application.
View Sharing The submission raised concerns with regards to view sharing.	Response The objection is upheld.   An assessment of the proposal indicates that the development is inconsistent with view sharing principles.   A full assessment will be provided within the key issues section of this report.
Building Stability The submissions raise concerns with regards to the requirement for a dilapidation report.	Response The objection is upheld.   Were the proposal to be granted development consent a dilapidation report would be required via condition.   This condition would adequately address any concerns regarding dilapidation.
Solar Access The submissions raises concerns with regards to the lack of solar access for surrounding developments	Response The objection is upheld.   The overall bulk and scale of the development does not allow for adequate solar access for the subject or adjoining developments.   Further assessment will be provided within the key issues of the report.
Disruption During Construction The submissions raise concerns with regards to overall disruptions to traffic and noise impacts during construction.	Response These issues would be addressed via conditions of any consent. No further investigation is required.
Future Plantings The submission raised concerns with regards to future trees and overhanging branches.	Response Councils landscape officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no issues with species selection. Maintenance of future plantings is not within the scope of this assessment.
Privacy The submission raises concerns with regards to privacy impacts upon adjoining dwellings.	Response This issue will be reviewed within the assessment report, notwithstanding the proposal is considered to not result in unreasonable privacy impacts.   No further investigation is required.
External Wall height The submissions raise concerns with regards to the variations to the external wall height proposed	Response The objection is upheld.   The proposal varies the external wall height standard significantly and this built form is not supported.   The issues will be assessed within the body of this report, notwithstanding the wall height adds to the unreasonable bulk of the proposal and is thus fatal to the application.
Landscaping The submission raises concerns with regard to the amount of landscaping provided by the development.	Response The objection is upheld.   Whilst the proposal shows various areas of landscaping, the layout fails to provide adequate functionality for the occupants of the site. The site layout does not lend itself to appropriate landscaping functions.
Side Boundary Setbacks The submission raises concerns with regards to the side boundary setbacks proposed.	Response The applicant has provided amended plans indicating that the side boundary setbacks have been increased. The objection is satisfactorily addressed by the revision.

 

 

 

 

5.1.    Renotification

Notwithstanding the additional information provided by the applicant. It was considerred that the proposal did not require renotification as the additional information did not address the bulk of the issues raised by Council. The proposal is to be refused in this regard.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments

The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed development is subject to SEPP 65 as it involves construction of 6 separate residential dwellings within four (4) storeys.

 

Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider:

 

(a)      the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

(b)      the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

(c)      the Apartment Design Guide.

 

6.1.1.        Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

The Design Excellence Panel functions as design review panel for the purposes of SEPP 65.

 

The DA was referred to the Design Excellence Panel for advice concerning the design quality of the development. The panel advised that the application was deficient in its response to the requirements of SEPP 65. Detailed comments provided by the DEP are provided in Appendix 1.

 

6.1.2.        Design quality principles

The comments provided by the DEP (refer to Appendix 1) detail how each of the nine quality design principals have been considered in the proposal.

 

6.1.3.        Apartment Design Guide

Appendix 2 provides an assessment of the proposal against the relevant design criteria contained in parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guidelines. In cases where the development does not satisfy the relevant criteria, the design guidance has been used to determine whether the proposal still meets the relevant objectives.

 

The inconsistencies with the design guide identified include:

 

1.   Exceedance of height control

2.   Limited Contextual Analysis Information

3.   Bulk and scale

4.   Reduce the basement footprint

5.   Reduce the site yield

6.   Provide ceiling fans

7.   Provide clothes lines

8.   Consider roof photovoltaics

9.   Floor to Ceiling heights

 

6.1.4.        Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent

Clause 30 of SEPP 65 states:

 

If an application ... satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application because of those matters:

 

(a)     if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,

(b)     if the internal area for each apartment will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the relevant apartment type specified in Part 4D of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

(c)     if the ceiling heights for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

The proposed development provides adequate parking (numerically) and unit sizes. These elements are outlined within Appendix 3. These elements are not reasons for refusal.

 

6.2.    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

6.3.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

The proposal is inconsistent 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 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	0.98:1 (580.36m2)	No*
Cl 4.3: Building height (max)	12m	12.4m	No

 

·      The applicant was advised of this shortfall in the development and the accompanying documentation but has not provided a Clause 4.6. application to vary the FSR control, thus the proposal cannot be approved on this basis alone. The unsupported breach in the FSR is fatal to the application.

 

Cl 6.7          Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The proposal is caught by the provisions of the foreshore scenic protection area. 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

 

Response

The proposal has been assessed against the four (4) step process contained within Tenacity v Warringah with regards to view sharing. The proposal fails to adequately maintain view sharing and thus the proposal does not minimise visual impact of views to and from the coast. Whilst this element is not fatal to the application, the unreasonable impacts upon this element of the controls add to the ill -fit of the design.

 

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

 

Response

The proposal neither contributes nor detracts from the coastal foreshore.

 

7.       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	Proposed variation (%)
Cl 4.3: Building height (max)	12m	12.4m	0.4 m	3%

 

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 summarized 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. 

 

7.1.    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 5

 

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 applicant’s written justification asserts that this objective is satisfied by noting that:

 

“The underlying purpose of this objective is to ensure that any future development is designed in a manner whereby any resulting building height will appropriately respond to both the existing and future context in a controlled manner.

 

Where the rooftop building element (lift overrun) exceeds the height standard, it does so in a manner where it does not visually add to the scale or intensity of the development.

 

It is evident that the siting and scale of the height breach is such that it will not preclude the ongoing integration between visual built forms serving as an affirmation of the  objective, and not that of a building that abandons height controls.”

 

(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 applicant’s written justification asserts that this objective is satisfied by noting that:

 

This objective is not relevant to the proposed development. The most proximate heritage item is the “Ballamac”, Victorian villa located at 39 Arcadia Street, Coogee, well removed from the subject site.

 

(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:

 

“Visual Bulk

The visual impact of the non-compliant height element is not significant because:

 

·      The breaching height only relates to a portion of the lift overrun which has been suitably integrated into the overall design of the building and is of a form and materiality that does not create any unwarranted visual impact;

 

·      The portion of the lift overrun that exceeds the height standard has been designed in a manner where it does not unreasonably contribute to the scale or intensity of the development when viewed by the casual observer given that it has been centralised within the uppermost building roof plate.

 

Having regard to the above, the element in breach of the height will be imperceptible when compared to a height compliant building on this site.

 

Privacy

In terms of privacy, the variation only relates to a lift overrun and therefore, does not result in any additional level of privacy impact. Importantly, all habitable components of the building are sited below the maximum 12m height line.

 

Overshadowing

The siting of the lift overrun away from the rooftop building peripheries, the orientation of the site and the extent of breach which is limited to a maximum of 400mm, all serve to mitigate the extent of impact or lack thereof upon neighbouring development. In this regard, any additional shadow cast by the breach will be limited to areas across the rooftop of the building and will not extend into neighbouring properties.

 

Views

The minor height breach, centrally contained within the roof plate, does not impede the extent of available views offered to neighbouring adjoining development.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal is not considered to respond appropriately to the constraints of the site. Concerns remain with regards to overshadowing, solar access and overall bulk and scale that link directly to the breach in the overall building height. The position of the lift and the overrun is problematic and creates a fundamental flaw in the overall building design. In addition, the proposal provides inadequate floor to floor height of 3m, which is inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide and will have the potential to affect the quality of living for the future occupants.

 

The height of the proposal is not an appropriate response to the site attributes and is not a result of topography. A more thoughtful approach to the development is required were this site yield to be pursued.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not adequately demonstrated that compliance with the building height 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 proposal (notwithstanding the LEP contravention), remains consistent with the objectives

of the development standard as provided in clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·      The proposal remains compliant with the allowable FSR for the site. Therefore, the height variation does not seek to provide any additional density or gross floor area (GFA).

 

·      Strict compliance with the building height standard would result in no material built form benefit;

 

·      The proposed height non-compliance relates to a part of the building that will not unreasonably contribute to the extent of appreciable building bulk as interpreted from the adjacent street frontage and private property interfaces”

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, as the validity of the information provided by the applicant is in question, it is not clear as to whether there are grounds to justify contravention of the policy. Notwithstanding, were the proposal to be considered on merit, the breach in height control is not considered necessary to the development as the built form and bulk of the design, together with the overall height, is unnecessary. The site is a brownfield development and does not have significant topographical constraints and compliance with the controls is not unreasonable and thus, there are no environmental planning grounds for departure.

 

The breach in height is a direct result of building design and yield. Thus, a more thoughtful approach is considered to be required for the development of this site.

 

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 R3 medium density zone is provided below:

Assessment against objectives of R3 Medium Density zone

 

 

The objectives of the Residential R3 Medium Density 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.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:  The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with the zone objectives, failing to preserve the streetscape or the protecting the amenity of adjoining residents.  As demonstrated above, the proposed development will not be in the public interest because it not consistent with the objectives of the height development standard and the objectives of the R3 Zone. In addition, the above demonstrates that compliance with the control is not unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. The public interest is not served by the height variation as no public benefit has been demonstrated.

 

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  regional environmental planning.

 

Is there public benefit from maintaining the development standard?

 

Variation of the height control standard fails to contribute to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in varying the development standard in this instance.

 

Conclusion

 

The inconsistency of the development with the zone objectives and the objectives of the height standard and the (potential and) resultant impacts arising is sufficient grounds to not support the breach. The assessment confirms the necessity for the development to comply. This therefore demonstrates sufficient environmental planning grounds to refuse contravening the standard.

 

7.1.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

The non-compliances with the development standards are discussed in section 7.

 

7.1.2.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

The Heritage impacts of the proposal are considerred within the Heritage referral undertaken and prepared by Councils Heritage officer. These comments are contained within Appendix 2.

 

7.1.3.      Clause 6.7 - Foreshore scenic protection area

The subject land is identified as being within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, thus an assessment of the proposed development against the provisions of Clause 6.7 of RLEP 2012 has been undertaken in this instance.

 

The objectives of Clause 6.7 aim to ensure that the natural, visual and environmental qualities of scenic areas of the coastline are protected, to protect and improve visually prominent areas, protect significant public views to and from the coast, and ensure development is appropriate and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

The proposal does not enhance the visual context by not providing architectural details on the building facades which are considered consistent with the surrounds. The proposed development fails to be sympathetic to the existing surrounding development. The proposal will result in an excessive level of bulk and scale and adverse visual impact.

 

The proposed development is considered to be out of context with the existing area and the established development along the coastline. The proposal breaches the height controls and relies on the existing building footprint, bulk, scale and design to justify shortfalls in the proposed development. In view of the above, the proposal is seen to be inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 6.7.

 

8.       Development control plans and policies

 

8.1.    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 in Appendix 4.

 

Note: Clause 6A of SEPP 65 states:

 

(1)  This clause applies in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for the following:

 

(a)  visual privacy,

(b)  solar and daylight access,

(c)  common circulation and spaces,

(d)  apartment size and layout,

(e)  ceiling heights,

(f)   private open space and balconies,

(g)  natural ventilation,

(h)  storage.

 

(2)  If a development control plan contains provisions that specify requirements, standards or controls in relation to a matter to which this clause applies, those provisions are of no effect.

 

(3)  This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

 

Consequently, where the Randwick DCP provides controls in relation to the matters listed in item (1), the assessment has been made against the relevant controls in parts 3 and 4 of the ADG (refer to appendix 3) rather than those in the DCP.

 

9.       Environmental Assessment

 

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.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.4. Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

In addressing the FSR calculations we turn to GGD Danks Street P/L and CR Danks Street P/L v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1521 and Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1577.

 

In determining the question of GFA, the Commissioner in Danks Street determined that the external face of the wall could not be characterised as an internal face because an external wall has a specific function that distinguishes it, that being, weatherproofing.

 

The Commissioner was of the opinion that the definition of GFA must refer to the interior surface of the wall that forms the exterior of a dwelling, being the wall that weatherproofs the interior space, and cannot refer to the exterior surface of the outer wall.  In the circumstances where the corridor would be subject to rain along the gap, the walls containing the corridor were considered by the Commissioner to be external walls, and therefore not included as internal floor space for the purpose of gross floor area.

 

In the Landmark decision, Commissioner Morris accepted Council’s argument that the breezeways were part of the gross floor area. At paragraph [57} she stated

 

 

“I do however recognise that individual circumstances in each case can lead to different outcomes. In Danks Street it would appear that different circumstances applied and that in particular the Commissioner had regard to the fact that the corridor would be wet during inclement weather with rain blown along the gap and the walls containing the corridor functioning as external walls….”

 

Then in Ceerose Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1289 Commissioner Dickson took a similar approach to Commissioner Morris in the Landmark case. The Commissioner said at paragraph [60] of the judgment:

 

“As detailed in Danks v City of Sydney the definition of gross floor area requires the floor area at each level of the building to be measured at the internal face of the external walls”.

 

In the specific design considered by O’Neil, C in the above case [Danks Street], the corridor in question was not enclosed by a wall that acted to weatherproof the building, or that formed a part of the building’s façade. On this basis, and the practical fact that the corridor would be wet during inclement weather, she found it was appropriate to exclude the floor area of the corridor, as it could not be characterised as internal floor space.

 

The Floor Space Ratio, is calculated consistent with the findings above, thus the subject proposal results in the FSR for the development being 0.98:1. This constitutes the following variation:

 

Clause	Required	Proposal	Compliance (Yes/No)	Variation
Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)	0.9:1	0.98:1 (580.36m2)	No	7.9%

 

The applicant was advised of this shortfall in the development and the accompanying documentation but has not provided a 4.6. application to vary the FSR control, thus the proposal cannot be approved on this basis alone. The unsupported breach in the FSR is fatal to the application.

 

Section 5.6. View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing controls within the RDCP 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 development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

 

To assess the modifications consistency with the objectives, the four (4) step Planning Principal outlined within Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140, will be employed:

 

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.

Response:

The surrounding properties, with particular reference to 31 and 33 Arcadia Street, have access to a view to the southeast incorporating district views with some headland and sea/sky nexus vistas. 

 

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.

 

Response:
The views are across the rear boundaries from habitable deck areas and internal living spaces from both standing and siting positions.

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.

 

Response:

The extent of the impact is severe. The build bulk, particularly with the lift overrun protruding in the centre of the site has an unreasonable impact upon the enjoyment of the view for the surrounding developments. This is further exacerbated by the view being a stand alone view, with the sites in Arcadia Street not having alternative vistas for the beach and ocean/headland locations.

 

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.

 

Response:

The proposal breaches the overall height control, the external wall height control, and the Floor space ratio control. The proposal is not considered reasonable in this regard.

 

Summary

In reviewing the proposal, it is clear that the proposal is not reasonable in its built form and has a severe impact upon the views enjoyed from the sites to the north. This shortfall carries determining weight.

 

Sydney Water Infrastructure

The applicant proposes to relocate Sydney Water Infrastructure, being the sewer main that runs north to south approximately 4m – 5m parallel to the western side boundary. In assessing this element of the proposal Councils engineers made the following comments:

 

“The proposed development will necessitate the relocation of the existing Sydney Water sewer line that currently flows north-south and parallel to the side boundaries in the western portion of the site.

 

The applicant has shown the sewer to be relocated however the proposed new manholes appear to be excessive in size and it is not currently known if Sydney Water will support the proposed diversion.

 

As a matter of due diligence, it is recommended in this case that the building plans (after any amendments) be submitted to Sydney Water’s “Tap in” service for approval prior to the issuing of any consent. This is to ensure the proposed sewer diversion is feasible and supportable by Sydney Water prior to Council issuing any development consent.”

 

The applicant responded with documentation prepared by “Olsen Infrastructure” dated: 11 March 2021, indicating the following:

 

“I have reviewed the email from council and note that they have requested a Building plan / Tapin application be started. This process can be started and subject to a fee of $100 + GST. It will however simply refer the project back to a Water servicing Coordinator such as ourselves due to the fact as you are building over the sewer main

 

As we have previously advised, the proposed building will clash with the levels of the existing sewer main and will be subject to a detailed design to Sydney Water standards and requirements for a sewer deviation. To commence on this design we would need to lodge a section 73 application with Sydney water.

 

Any application to Sydney Water to allow the deviation is not undertaken until such time as we have a Valid DA consent from council. Upon receipt of this consent, we would lodge the application to Sydney Water with a view of adjusting the sewer main either around or through the building.

 

A detailed design is then prepared and reviewed by Sydney Water. This process could take several months or longer depending on issues that may be encountered. You had also made mention that council had commented on the size of the MH’s you had shown on your plans.

 

As the sewer is a large main (DN400), the size of the MH increases from a standard 1050 to a standard 1200 dia MH. The size of these MH’s are a standard detail and although they may be large underground, they reduce in size at the top so that only the standard 600mm circular opening is visible.”

 

In considering this information, clarification was sought from Council Engineers with regards to the lodgment of a Section 73 certificate without a consent, which is able to be undertaken. The location and outcome of the sewer relocation is one of the integral design drivers for the development and therefore, certainty is paramount with regards to this relocation issue.

 

It is also noted that, as the design has significant shortfalls and does not respond appropriately to this element of the site constraints, the relocation may prove challenging. The response to the site overall, particularly the constraining elements is considered to be problematic. The sewer pipe is a crucial element and would be required to be resolved by the applicant to Sydney Water and Council Engineers satisfaction prior to any approval.

 

Basement Parking Layout

Council has significant concerns with regards to the functionality of the basement parking. In this regard the following was forwarded to the applicant:

 

“The proposed parking layout is very restrictive and relies on a mechanical turntable to access at least 3 of the spaces. All of the remaining car spaces not dependent on the turntable will still require a 1 or 2 point turn to enter/exit or both. This is not considered acceptable and is likely to act as a significant deterrent for residents and visitors who may instead park on-street.

 

Given the nearly 15m site width available, it is considered the carpark could be redesigned with a far less restrictive layout.  The location of the lift well especially appears to restrict the current layout and is problematic. Its relocation should be considered.

 

The following non-compliances with AS 2890.1 have also been identified with the current layout

 

·      The aisle width between storage area ST 03 and carspace CS 04 is less than the minimum 5.8m required by AS 2890.1

 

·      The internal driveway exceeds a grade of 5% within 6m of the front property alignment as required by Clause 3.3 in AS 2890.1. The 5% section only extends for 2m on the submitted plans. which is unacceptable. Development Engineering will accept the maximum following variation to AS 2890.1

o  3.5 m @ 5% (1 in 20)

o  Followed by 2m at 12.5% (1 in 8)

o  May steepen to 25% after this point (i.e. at 5.5m into the property)

 

·      Correcting the driveway to compliant grades will extend the driveway length and may create overhead clearance issues under the start of the slab for the ground floor. This should be checked.

 

Loss of On-street Accessible Car Parking

It appears the proposed vehicle crossing will result in the loss of the current on-street accessibility car parking space located adjacent to the existing driveway. This should be confirmed and if correct, a proposed position for the relocated space plus any other required remarking of the spaces along the site frontage shall be shown on a plan.”

 

The applicant responded with the following:

 

“I have considered the issues raised in Councils RFI regarding the car park design and respond in the following:

 

The attached diagram assesses the comparative sighting position of the driver of an egressing car at the site boundary for the optional ramp grade circumstances of:

 

·      the Council nominated grading

·      the grading incorporating a vertical curve and shorter 1:20

 

As you are aware this is a grading arrangement, we have used on other residential projects in the

Eastern Suburbs and was recently accepted by Woollahra Council for the project at 1A Benelong

Crescent Bellevue Hill (copy attached).

 

The attached assessment diagram demonstrates that the driver will essentially be in the exact

same position when the car is at the boundary for both circumstances. The benefit of the vertical

radius is that the grade change is made more smoothly than a single point transition.

 

In regard the layout of the parking I am aware that while the site is 15m wide the available width is constrained by the sewer line which runs along the eastern boundary within the site.

 

The design of the car park complies with the AS2890.1 criteria with the aisle width at ST03 now

modified. Neither the DCP or AS2890.1 preclude 3 point turns for ingress/egress of parking spaces (in fact Table 1.1 refers to 3 point turns) or use of a turntable.

 

The turning path assessment adopts the AS2890.1 specified 85th per centile car which is in fact

relatively large while smaller cars will be able to access more readily that shown on the SP

diagrams attached to the Traffic Report.”

Figure 7: Applicant provided diagram (Separate Unrelated Site)

 

Whilst the notes do address some of the issues raised, the parking provided is not supported due to the remaining issues. Particular constraints are the failure of the proposal design to allow for pedestrian safety within the basement area and does not show regard for the constraint placed upon the site by the relocated sewer pipe (which has not yet been provided with a final location).

 

These issues together with the removal of street parking combine to result in the basement parking remaining unsupportable in its current form.

(It should be noted that the design of the building overall, is constrained further in both parking solutions and design, by the placement of the lift.)

 

External Wall Heights

The external wall height of the proposed development does not comply with the DCP control of 10.5m and contributes to view loss impacts to the neighbouring properties. Habitable roof space maybe considered provided it is contained wholly within the roof space and has a maximum floor space of 65% of the floor area of storey immediately below.  The proposed top level appears as a storey and is more than 65% of the story immediately below.

 

The applicant responded with a submission asserting that the objective of this rule is to assist in the reduction of bulk and scale. The proposal meets the maximum FSR  and height controls (Not concurred with) whilst allowing for an overall built form which is less bulky, shorter and retains a smaller footprint when compared to the existing building on site.

 

The proponents have persisted with the excessive wall heights and thus, they carry a determining weight enough to refuse the application.

 

10.     Conclusion

 

That the application for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with associated landscaping and parking together with works relating to Sydney Water infrastructure be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposal does not comply the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development resulting in adverse amenity impacts.

 

2.   The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, clause 4.3 Height of Buildings, and the variation is not within the public interest as the development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

3.   The proposal does not satisfy the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, 4.6. Exceptions to Development Standards, in that the request for the height of buildings variation is not well founded and does not demonstrate a public benefit.

 

4.   The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, 4.4. Floor Space Ratio development standard.

 

5.   The proposal does not comply the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, Clause 4.6.(3) in that no submission with regards to the variation pursuant to Clause 4.4 has been received. 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.

 

6.   The proposal is does not comply the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 with regards to;

 

·      External wall height.

·      Basement parking configuration.

·      Visual amenity impacts and excessive bulk and scale.

·      Impacts upon view sharing.

·      Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

7.   The proposal fails to show regard for environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments.

 

8.   Pursuant to Section 4.15 Evaluation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Paragraph (c) the suitability of the site for the development as not been adequately demonstrated by the proposal.

 

9.   The proposal is not in the public interest due to the excessive and numerous deviations from relevant plans and policies.

 

10.  The proposal is not in the public interest as there is no certainty in the information provided by the applicant with regards to the relocation of the sewer infrastructure.

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Design Excellence Panel Comments

 

INTRODUCTION

Attached is a copy of the minutes relating to this SEPP 65 meeting.

The Panel’s comments are intended to assist Council in their design consideration of an application against the SEPP 65 principles. The absence of a comment under a head of consideration does not imply that particular matter to be satisfactorily addressed, more likely the changes are suggested elsewhere to generate a desirable change.

 

Your attention is drawn to the following;

 

-    SEPP 65, including the 9 Design Quality Principles and the requirements for a Qualified Designer (a Registered Architect) to provided Design Verification Statements throughout the design, documentation and construction phases of the project.

-     The Apartment Design Guide, as published by Planning NSW (July 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

Both documents are available from the NSW Department of Planning.

 

Note: The Design Review Panel is appointed by the NSW Minister for Planning, on the recommendation of Council.  The Panel’s written and verbal comments are their professional opinions and constitute expert design quality advice to Waverley Council, the architect and the applicant.

 

1.        To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans. Prior to preparing any amended plans or attending additional Panel presentations, the applicant MUST discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with Council’s assessing Planning Officer.

 

2.        When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

SEPP 65 DESIGN REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is the first time the Panel has reviewed a proposal for this property. The Panel is familiar with the local context and the challenge associated with the redevelopment of buildings within this highly valued and sensitive coastal location. This condition is compounded by the high visibility of the site from the adjacent public open spaces and coastal path.

 

The design features the demolition of an existing three-storey walk-up flat building and construction of a 4-storey residential flat building that sits within the 12m height controls and aligns with the 0.9:1 FSR (noting the existing building exceeds the permissible FSR). There are some minor exceedance of side setbacks, which have been addressed below.

 

The Panel is particularly interested in the presentation of the building’s southern elevation, interface with the street and impacts on view lines through the site from the street and surrounding buildings.

 

1.         Context and Neighbourhood Character

The proposal sits within a highly sensitive and valued coastal setting, a short walk from the Coogee Beach and town centre, local bus services, and immediately opposite Dunningham Reserve. Given this location, the panel is particularly interested in the impacts to the amenity (views) of surrounding properties, particularly where this impact is a result of minor incursions into the boundary setbacks along the eastern and western boundaries.

 

The Panel doesn’t see these potential impacts being a major challenge, but additional view analysis should be included in the analysis section of the DA documentation, focusing on 31 and 33 Arcadia Street, and 97-101 Beach Street.

 

2.         Built Form and Scale

The overall form, massing and coverage of the proposal aligns with the current planning controls, with the exception of a number of non-compliances in the side setbacks, and floor to floor heights, which should be 3.1m to allow adequate structure and servicing – noting the architect is arguing for 3m based on other project precedents. The building’s internal amenity shouldn’t be limited to only accommodating concrete ceilings with exposed services. The overall height should be increased by 400mm to achieve this outcome, and the additional impacts arising from this increased height clearly identified.

 

The character of Baden Street is tall narrow building frontages addressing the street, with equally tall and narrow separations between neighbouring properties. These breaks in the built form are crucial to providing view through the site to the north, to the sky and allow neighbouring properties to see through the site to the public space and coastline. This rhythm in the street also provides an important experience for pedestrians, as the potentially relentless built form is broken down and creating greater interest to the overall streetscape.

 

The succulent planters at level 1 should be pulled back from the eastern and western boundaries, as the DCP setbacks refer to al built elements. The minor encroachment into the eastern setback at Levels 1 and 2 (dining room and terrace) should be removed, as these have the potential to impact views and reduce the overall building separation with No. 7.

 

The form of any new building should carefully consider the existing character, expression and articulation of the largely heritage buildings along Baden Street. Similar to the existing building at No. 5, the streetscape is defined by these tall, narrow and expressed bays that run the full height of the building. Some buildings have sandstone at the base, and most have pitch roof profiles, which further animate the height and narrowness of the form. The Panel would like to see similar approaches taken in this design, which currently features an overly horizontal form, extensive glazing and a broad presentation to the street – lacking the height and narrowness of its neighbours.

 

3.         Density

The panel support the density proposed on the site, as its represents a reduction in GFA as compared to the existing building.

 

4.         Sustainability

A number of amendments to the design could improve the sustainability and environmental performance of the project. These include;

 

-       Rainwater harvesting, storage, treatment and re-use, for garden irrigation, toilets and laundry. This is particularly important given the steps taken to manage stormwater run-off.

-       Photovoltaics should be included on roofs to mitigate energy usage. A solar photovoltaic system could power common areas with any excess energy feeding into the grid.

-       Ceiling fans should be used where possible, particularly in the bedrooms. If A/C is proposed, then further information should be provided on the location of condenser units (balconies, roof or service room?)

-       Operable skylights to the top floor unit to improve natural ventilation during high-wind conditions, and for the lower levels, the use of trickle-vents or high-louvre windows

 

5.         Landscape

Despite the constrained site and extent of basement the design appears to have meet the landscape and deep soil targets. The Panel notes the absence of communal open space, put given the access to extensive and high-quality open space at Dunningham Reserve, Coogee Beach and along the coastal path, in addition to the generous balcony spaces and ground floor spaces being assigned to private amenity, this approach is supported.

 

Even with the reduced succulent planters at Level 1 the scheme still features an extensive area of landscaping across the upper levels of the building. This approach is broadly supported, subject to a clear and achievable maintenance strategy for the building. Its currently unclear who is responsible for the ownership and maintenance of these spaces, and in some cases, how they’re accessed.

 

6.         Amenity

The challenge for site in this location is access northern sunlight whilst orientating the primary living spaces to the south – where the views are positioned. Given these circumstances, its acceptable that the design doesn’t satisfy the solar access guidance of the ADG. However there still appears to be instances where solar access to the primary living spaces could be gained along the eastern elevation. These should be investigated in greater detail, and balanced against the implications for privacy.

The amenity of Unit GL01 needs to be reviewed to ensure the permeability of the fence to Baden Street provide adequate visual privacy, without requiring a 1.8m solid wall along the street frontage. Similarly, the visual prominence of the basement entrance could be reduced with additional planting along the western boundary, either in raised planters or climbing plants.

The privacy of the Level 2 and 3 balconies could be improved by providing solid upstands to the balustrades. This approach won’t impact on the views from the unit, and can also support changes to the southern elevation in response to comments above.

Other aspects of amenity have been addressed in the points above.

7.         Safety

The pedestrian access to the basement should be clearly delineated to avoid potential conflicts with cars, and be indicated by a dedicated and secure gate/door – avoiding the need for the basement garage door to be used for pedestrian access only. Pedestrian access to the dwellings should be aligned to the southern boundary, minimising impacts on Unit 1 and dispersing pedestrian movements along the length of the frontage (rather than concentrating around the basement entrance.

8.         Housing diversity and Social Interaction

No comments in relation to housing diversity and social interaction.

 

9.         Aesthetics

The building appears low, bulky and overtly glazed, which contrasts with the current character of Baden Street. Given the prominence and visibility of this street frontage from an iconic coastal area, its critical at the southern elevation sits comfortably within the context. The Panel supports the overall material selection and introduction of landscape throughout the building, but further work is required to introduce greater verticality and solidity in the building – see comments above.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the importance of this site the Panel would like to see an amended scheme that addresses the points above.

 

2.    Internal referral comments:

 

2.1.    Heritage planner

 

The Site

The site is occupied by a three storey early twentieth century residential flat building, considerably altered but retaining a number of original features. 

 

To the north east of the site at no.39 Arcadia Street is “Ballamac” listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Heritage NSW database sheet for “Ballamac” identifies its significance as:

 

Historically important as the first owner, the Hon Charles Moore played an important role in the Sydney and Randwick Municipalities. Later owners were also people of note.

 

To the north west of the site at no.29 Arcadia Street is “Roslyn” also listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes to demolish the existing building and to construct a new residential flat building comprising four storeys above basement. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section on Heritage Conservation as follows:

 

The subject site is not identified as a heritage item, is not located within a heritage conservation area nor is it located in proximity to an item of relevance.

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 includes and Objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, setting and views.

 

Comments

 

Impact of the proposal on heritage items in the vicinity

The proposed development is separated from the heritage items to the north east and north west and will not impact on their fabric.  The proposal will not impact on the streetscape setting of the Arcadia Street heritage items and being generally compatible with the scale of surrounding development should not affect views to or from them.

 

Demolition of the existing building

There are a substantial number of submissions in response to the notification/advertising of the DA which raise concerns relating to heritage conservation.  A site visit was made to view the exterior of the building, but internal access was not available, other than to the front entrance.  Detailed historical research has not been undertaken. 

 

Council’s electronic application records indicate a building application for construction of the building in 1922, a building application for alterations and additions in 1968 and strata titling in 1979.  Council’s historic aerial photographs for the site indicate progressive rear additions to the building. 

 

No.5 Baden Street comprises a three storey early twentieth century residential flat building.  The building has a hipped roof with a flat roofed balcony, now enclosed, to the south east corner, and a central hipped roofed entrance portico.  The floor plan of the building includes a main front entrance stair and steep timber stairs recessed into the east and west side elevations. 

 

This entrance portico comprises sandstone columns, detailed timber beams and timber rafter ends and a standing seam metal roof.  The front elevation includes decorative corner pilasters, two arched openings, and a number of flat roofed shingled bays with timber windows.  The front elevation has been considerably altered, including replacement of most original windows and enclosure of arched balcony openings.  The front entrance includes concrete Tuscan columns, timber entry doors, face brick walls, terrazzo flooring, timber stair handrails and leadlight windows (enclosed externally). 

 

The side elevation includes the recessed stairs within arched openings, a number of original shingled bays and original corbel-supported projecting windows, generally in poor condition.  Other original features include timber lined eaves and timber rafter ends to bay windows.  Original face brickwork has an applied coating and has been painted, and it appears that original timber shingles have been replaced with another material.  The original configuration of the rear of the building is unclear due to substantial alterations and additions which include non-original timber and aluminium framed windows.  An early rear garage, now with its roof removed, remains in the north west corner of the site. 

 

The 1987 Randwick Heritage Study Street by Street survey describes no.5 Baden Street as “1930s flats.  Three storeys.  Features attractive shingled balconies and pillared stone porch.”  The property was given a C rating. 

 

The rating scale was as follows:

A       Condition “A”

B       Could be restored

C       Could be restored at much cost

R       Ruined (major change)

 

Generally only properties given an A rating were listed as heritage items. 

 

Council has just completed a heritage review of residential properties in the Randwick local government area that was undertaken by appointed heritage consultants.  Council’s consultants carried out this project through desktop review of data, fieldwork, and collation of submissions which were made as part of an online community consultation process which took place early last year in February 2020.  No.5 Baden Street has not been the subject of any resident submission for heritage consideration.  The consultants work is now complete and the Randwick Heritage Review will be reported to Council in late April 2021. 

 

In terms of heritage significance, no.5 Baden Street is clearly recognisable as an early twentieth century building.  The building has been extensively altered however with many original building elements replaced, and is not well maintained.  As noted in the 1987 Heritage Survey, the building would require extensive and costly work in order to restore it, including reversal of later changes, replacement of deteriorated and unsympathetic elements and finishes, and to achieve BCA compliance.  It is considered that the building does not have sufficient heritage value on aesthetic grounds, to warrant heritage protection. 

 

Planning Alerts comments suggest that the building was owned by Coogee garage proprietor William D. McLeod from 1922 until 1941 and was originally known as McLeod apartments. The McLeod Motor Garage operated from the old Palace Aquarium building.  The building has been used as a setting for a television drama “Wonderland” which ran from 2013 to 2015, and may have some social or associational significance for its connections with William McLeod and the “Wonderland” series. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      A photographic archival recording of the property internally and externally shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  One bound copy and one digital copy (DVD or USB) of the archival recording is to be submitted to Council for inclusion in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library and for Council’s own records incorporating the following:

 

o    A PDF copy of the archival record incorporating a detailed historical development of the site, purpose of the archival recording, copyright permission for Council to use the photographs for research purposes, photographic catalogue sheet cross-referenced to the base floor and site plans showing the locations of archival photographs taken, and index print of the photographs; 

o    Digital copies of the archival photographs in JPEG and TIFF formats.

 

·      A salvage plan shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The salvage plan is required to ensure that internal and external materials including joinery, windows, doors and remnant components of significant heritage fabric are carefully removed and stored, sold or donated to a heritage salvaging yard to facilitate the conservation of other buildings of a similar period. 

 

2.2.  Development Engineer

 

An application has been received for construction of new residential flat building at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by mkd architects dated September 2020;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by BMAUrban dated 29yh September 2020

·      Detail & Level Survey by Mitchell Ayres Surveyor dated 29/03/2020

 

General Comments

The application is not supported by Development Engineering in its present form. The issues are outlined as follows.

 

Parking Issues

The proposed parking provision of 9 spaces is satisfactory and will comply with the parking rates specified in Part B7 of the DCP however issues have been identified with the parking layout

 

Carpark Layout

The proposed parking layout is very restrictive and relies on a mechanical turntable to access at least 3 of the spaces. All of the remaining car spaces not dependent on the turntable will still require a 1 or 2 point turn to enter/exit or both. This is not considered acceptable and is likely to act as a significant deterrent for residents and visitors who may instead park on-street.

 

Given the nearly 15m site width available, it is considered the carpark could be redesigned with a far less restrictive layout.  The location of the lift well especially appears to restrict the current layout and is problematic. Its relocation should be considered.

 

The following non-compliances with AS 2890.1 have also been identified with the current layout

 

·      The aisle width between storage area ST 03 and carspace CS 04 is less than the minimum 5.8m required by AS 2890.1

 

·      The internal driveway exceeds a grade of 5% within 6m of the front property alignment as required by Clause 3.3 in AS 2890.1. The 5% section only extends for 2m on the submitted plans. which is unacceptable. Development Engineering will accept the maximum following variation to AS 2890.1

o  3.5 m @ 5% (1 in 20)

o  Followed by 2m at 12.5% (1 in 8)

o  May steepen to 25% after this point (i.e. at 5.5m into the property)

 

·      Correcting the driveway to compliant grades will extend the driveway length and may create overhead clearance issues under the start of the slab for the ground floor. This should be checked.

 

Loss of On-street Accessible Car Parking

It appears the proposed vehicle crossing will result in the loss of the current on-street accessibility car parking space located adjacent to the existing driveway. This should be confirmed and if correct, a proposed position for the relocated space plus any other required remarking of the spaces along the site frontage shall be shown on a plan.

 

Waste Management Issues

 

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 = 6/2 = 3 x 240L bins of each

 

The submitted plans indicate the waste storage area accommodating 6 x 240L bins which would accommodate the above however no allowance has been made for green waste.

 

Council is also introducing a food and organic waste service (FOGO) from March 2021 which will also incorporate Council’s previous green waste requirements. In this regard it is estimated that an additional 3 x 240L FOGO bins will also be required for this development, whereas previously 1-2 green waste bins would have probably been sufficient.

 

Total Number of BINS required            = 3(normal) + 3(recycling) + 3(FOGO)

                                                         = 9 x 240L BINS

                           

As the submitted plans indicate the waste storage area accommodating only 6 x 240L bins provided it is therefore currently undersized.

 

Sydney Water Issues

The proposed development will necessitate the relocation of the existing Sydney Water sewer line that currently flows north-south and parallel to the side boundaries in the western portion of the site.

 

The applicant has shown the sewer to be relocated however the proposed new manholes appear to be excessive in size and it is not currently known if Sydney Water will support the proposed diversion.

 

As a matter of due diligence, it is recommended in this case that the building plans (after any amendments) be submitted to Sydney Water’s “Tap in” service for approval prior to the issuing of any consent. This is to ensure the proposed sewer diversion is feasible and supportable by Sydney Water prior to Council issuing any development consent.

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 12 January 2021 confirmed the only established vegetation that requires assessment for this application are two semi-mature, 12-15m tall Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) in existing garden beds out in the Baden Street road reserve, being one just to the west of the existing vehicle crossing/western site boundary, then one towards the eastern boundary, which appear in good health and fair condition due to past clearance pruning and their restricted growing environment.

 

They are protected by the DCP due both to their size and location out on public property, and were also observed to be part of a group planting that exists along the length of this street, on both sides of the street, so as a group, are identified as the main feature of this streetscape.

 

Both can be retained in-situ as shown, given that the plans show the driveway being maintained in its existing position, along the western boundary, with protection measures geared towards protecting them from secondary damage such as from trucks, machinery, deliveries and similar. 

The small shrubs in the front setback are too small to meet the criteria of Council’s DCP, so can all be removed and replaced as shown, with the only vegetation in the rear setback being a 4-5m tall Cotoneaster, which is recognised as an undesirable, low value, invasive weed species, which is exempt from the DCP, so can also be removed.

 

The semi-mature Kentia Palm beyond the rear boundary, wholly on the adjoining private property, will not be affected by works to the new area of common open space at the rear, just to its south, as the existing brick retaining wall on this common boundary would have already acted as a physical barrier to prevent root growth entering this site, with the mature Cocos Palm beyond the western site boundary sited at such a distance from all works that it will not be affected in anyway.

 

The submitted Landscape scheme shows a high level of detail and treatment, that will drastically increase the amount of plant material at this site, containing a mixture of exotic and native coastal species, at both ethe ground level and in planters on the upper floors, which will result in a high quality outcome for future occupants, so conditions require that it be formally adopted and implemented as part of any approval.

 

 

 

Appendix 2: Applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3: SEPP 65 Compliance Table

 

Clause	Design Criteria	Proposal	Compliance
Part 3: Siting the Development
3D-1	Communal and Public Open Space
	Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)	Not Provided	NO
	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).	Not Provided	NO
3E-1
	Deep soil zones are to meet the following requirements: Site Area:   Site Area Min. Dimension Deep Soil Zone (% site) < 650m2 - 7% 650–1,500m2 3m 7% >1,500m2 6m 7%	147.94m2 25%	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:   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 Over 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) Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties	Separations   East 3.8m   West 3.4m   Habitable Rooms   Non Habitable Rooms	NO   YES
3J-1	Bicycle and Car Parking
	For sites located within 800m of a light rail stop, 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 car parking requirement is 9 spaces for cars and 1 bicycle spaces.          Compliant	YES NO – Acceptable         YES
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.	Complies	YES
	A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter	Complies	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	Complies	YES
	Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.	Complies	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 ·      Attic spaces – 1.8m at edge with min 30 degree ceiling slope ·      Mixed use areas – 3.3m for ground and first floor These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired	All rooms 2.7m	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 A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12 m2 each	2 bed: 75 - 80m2 3 bed:108 - 116.5m2     Complies     Not Applicable	YES YES         YES     N/A
	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	YES
	Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height	Complies	YES
	In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window	Complies	YES
	Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)	Complies	YES
	Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space	Complies	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	Complies	YES
	The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts	Complies	YES
4E	Apartment Size and Layout
	All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:   Dwelling                   type Minimum area Minimum depth Studio 4 m2 - 1 bedroom 8 m2 2m 2 bedroom 10 m2 2m 3+ bedroom 12 m2 2.4m   The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m	Complies Complies	YES 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	Complies	YES
4F	Common Circulation and Spaces
	The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight	Complies	YES
	For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40	Not Applicable	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	Complies Complies	YES YES

 

 

Appendix 4: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section B6: Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause	Control	Proposal	Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)
4.	On-Going Operation
	(iv)   Locate and design the waste storage facilities to visually and physically complement the design of the development. Avoid locating waste storage facilities between the front alignment of a building and the street where possible.	Complies	YES
	(v)    Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.	Complies	YES
	(vi)   Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.	Not Applicable	N/A
	(vii)  Ensure the waste storage facilities are easily accessible for all users and waste collection personnel and have step-free and unobstructed access to the collection point(s).	Complies	YES
	(viii)Provide sufficient storage space within each dwelling / unit to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.	Complies	YES
	(ix) Bin enclosures / rooms must be ventilated, fire protected, drained to the sewerage system and have lighting and water supply.	Non-compliant	NO

 

3.2       Section B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

DCP Clause	Control	Proposal	Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)
3.              Parking & Service Delivery Requirements
	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	9 Provided	Complies
	Motor cycle requirements: 5% of car parking requirement	Non-compliant	NO
4.              Bicycles
	Residents: ·      1 bike space per 2 units Visitors: ·      1 per 10 units	Non-compliant	No - acceptable

 

3.3     Section C2: Medium Density Residential

 

DCP Clause	Control	Proposal	Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)
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	Complies	YES
2.2	Landscaped open space and deep soil area
2.2.1	Landscaped open space
	A minimum of 50% of the site area (295m2) is to be landscaped open space.	295.895m2 (50%)	YES
2.2.2	Deep soil area
	(i)     A minimum of 25% of the site area (152.5m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.	Complies	YES
	(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.	Complies	YES
	(iii)   Deep soil areas are to have soft landscaping comprising a variety of trees, shrubs and understorey planting.	Can Comply	YES
	(iv)   Deep soil areas cannot be located on structures or facilities such as basements, retaining walls, floor slabs, rainwater tanks or in planter boxes.	Complies	YES
	(v)    Deep soil zones shall be contiguous with the deep soil zones of adjacent properties.	Complies	YES
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.	Complies     Complies       Complies	YES     YES       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 within the dwelling. (vii)  Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.	Complies     Complies	YES     YES
2.3.2	Communal open space
	Communal open space for residential flat buildings 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.	Not provided	NO
3.              Building Envelope
3.1	Floor space ratio
	0.9:1	0.98:1	NO
3.2	Building height
	12m	12.4m	NO
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	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.	Complies         Complies         Not Applicable       Complies       Complies	YES         YES         N/A       YES       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.	Complies             Complies     Can Comply   Complies   Non-compliant     Complies   Complies         Can Comply	YES             YES     YES   YES   NO     YES   YES         YES
3.4.3	Rear setback
	For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth 5.94m) or 5m, whichever is the greater.	5.94m building proper   4.8m to basement	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.	Complies       Complies         Complies             Complies   Complies	YES       YES         YES             YES   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.	Complies       Complies     Non-compliant         Non-compliant                     Not applicable             Non compliant       Not Applicable                                         Not applicable	YES     YES       NO         NO                     N/A             NO       N/A                                       N/A
4.3	Habitable roof space – Not Applicable
4.4	External wall height and ceiling height
	(ii)    Where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 8m applies.	Not applicable	N/A
	(iii)   The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.	Not Applicable	N/A
4.5	Pedestrian Entry
	(i)       Separate and clearly distinguish between pedestrian pathways and vehicular access.	Complies	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.	Non – compliant     Non – compliant     Complies         Non – compliant                 Can Comply   Complies         Can Comply     Can Comply       Can Comply	NO     NO     YES         NO                 YES   YES         YES     YES       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.	Complies     Non-compliant   Can comply   Non compliant   Complies   Non compliant	YES     NO   YES   NO   YES   NO
	(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.	Not Applicable Complies       Complies	N/A YES       YES
	(iii)   Where apartments are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, limit the number of units accessible from a single core or to 8 units.	Not Applicable	N/A
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.	Not applicable     Complies     Not applicable       Complies	N/A     YES     N/A       YES
	(ii)    Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.	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.	Complies	YES
	(iv)   Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.	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.	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.	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.	Complies       Complies       Complies     Complies   Complies         Complies                             Complies     Can comply	YES       YES       YES     YES   YES         YES                             YES     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.	Refer to Geotech report prepared by Morrow Geotechnics	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).	Complies         Complies               Not Applicable	YES         YES               N/A
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	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.	Complies	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.	Complies	YES
	(iv)      Any variations from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how solar access and energy efficiency is maximised.	Not Applicable	N/A
	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           Complies           Complies	YES           YES           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.	Complies	YES
	(ii)    Sun shading devices appropriate to the orientation should be provided for the windows and glazed doors of the building.	Complies	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.	Complies	YES
	(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	YES
	(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	YES
	(vi)   A minimum of 25% of kitchens within a development should have access to natural ventilation and be adjacent to openable windows.	Complies	YES
	(vii)  Developments, which seek to vary from the minimum standards, must demonstrate how natural ventilation can be satisfactorily achieved, particularly in relation to habitable rooms.	Not Applicable	N/A
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         Generally complies           Not applicable           Generally complies	YES         YES           N/A           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	Complies               Non-compliant	YES               NO
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.	Non compliant             Non-compliant           Not Applicable         Complies             Non-compliant       Not Indicated	NO             NO           NO         YES             NO       NO
5.6	Safety and security
	(i)        Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.	Complies	YES
	(iii)      For residential flat buildings, provide direct, secure access between the parking levels and the main lobby on the ground floor.	Complies	YES
	(iv)      Design window and door placement and operation to enable ventilation throughout the day and night without compromising security. The provision of natural ventilation to the interior space via balcony doors only, is deemed insufficient.	Complies	YES
	(v)       Avoid high walls and parking structures around buildings and open space areas which obstruct views into the development.	Complies	YES
	(vi)      Resident car parking areas must be equipped with security grilles or doors.	Can comply	YES
	(vii)     Control visitor entry to all units and internal common areas by intercom and remote locking systems.	Can comply	YES
	(viii)    Provide adequate lighting for personal safety in common and access areas of the development.	Complies	YES
	(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.	Non compliant	NO
	(x)       External lighting must be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents.	Complies	YES
	(xi)      Provide illumination for all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.	Complies	YES
6.              Car parking and access
6.1	Location
	(i)     Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.	Not Applicable	N/A
	(ii)    The location of car parking and access facilities must minimise the length of driveways and extent of impermeable surfaces within the site.	Complies	YES
	(iii)   Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.	Non – compliant (0.8m)	NO
	(iv)   Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.	Not Applicable	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.	Complies             Not Applicable         Complies         Complies	YES             N/A         YES         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.	Refer to Key Issues assessment	NO
	(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.	Complies	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.	Non-compliant     Non-compliant           Complies     Not Applicable       Non-compliance             Can Comply         Can Comply       Complies	NO     NO           YES     N/A       N/A             YES         YES       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.	Complies         Not applicable       Complies     Complies	YES         N/A       YES     YES
7.2	Front Fencing
	(i)     The fence must align with the front property boundary or the predominant fence setback line along the street.	Complies	YES
	(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.	Complies	YES
	(iii)   Construct the non-solid portion of the fence with light weight materials that are at least 30% open and evenly distributed along the full length of the fence.	Complies	YES
	(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.	Not Applicable	N/A
	(v)    The fence must incorporate stepping to follow any change in level along the street boundary. The height of the fence may exceed the aforementioned numerical requirement by a maximum of 150mm adjacent to any stepping.	Not Applicable	N/A
	(vi)   The preferred materials for front fences are natural stone, face bricks and timber.	Non – compliant	NO
	(vii)  Gates must not open over public land.	Can Comply	YES
	(viii) The fence adjacent to the driveway may be required to be splayed to ensure adequate sightlines for drivers and pedestrians.	Indicated compliance	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.	Can comply         Not Applicable       Can comply     Can Comply	YES         YES       N/A     N/A
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	Complies               Complies               Complies   Complies	YES               YES               YES   YES
7.7	Laundry facilities
	(i)       Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.	Can Comply	YES
	(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.	Complies	YES
	(iii)      Provide a separate service balcony for clothes drying for dwelling units where possible. Where this is not feasible, reserve a space for clothes drying within the sole balcony and use suitable balustrades to screen it to avoid visual clutter.	Complies	YES
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.	Complies	YES

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

Responsible officer:      Mitchell Drake, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

File Reference:               DA/523/2020