Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report|16 December 2015 ASSESSMENT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Executive Summary Reason for consideration by Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel This development has been referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) pursuant to Clause 1.4 of the IHAP Charter as the application involves a variation to development standards contained within the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009, notably 4.4 Floor space ratio (FSR). Proposal The proposal seeks consent for additions to an existing dwelling house, which comprises the partial removal of the existing roof and a second storey component which increases the floor area from 105.18m² to 184.927m² (excluding the double garage). Permissibility The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, pursuant to the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009. The proposal is categorised by its existing primary use as a dwelling house and is permissible in the zone. Exhibition Details of the proposal were publicly exhibited in accordance with Appendix 1: Public Notification and Advertising Procedures of the Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP) 2009. Six (6) submissions were received during the exhibition period. Consultation External External consultation was not required as assumed concurrence to development standards has been returned to Council by the Department of Planning and Environment. IHAP No. Item 3 DA No. DA-2015/1303 Proposal Residential – Alterations & additions to existing dwelling house Property 4 Gardenia Terrace, WOONONA Lot 408 DP848811 Applicant Debbie Farrelly Responsible Team Development Assessment and Certification – Building and Certification Team (SR)
Transcript
Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report|16 December 2015
ASSESSMENT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Executive Summary
Reason for consideration by Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel This development has been referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) pursuant to Clause 1.4 of the IHAP Charter as the application involves a variation to development standards contained within the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009, notably 4.4 Floor space ratio (FSR).
Proposal
The proposal seeks consent for additions to an existing dwelling house, which comprises the partial removal of the existing roof and a second storey component which increases the floor area from 105.18m² to 184.927m² (excluding the double garage).
Permissibility
The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, pursuant to the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009. The proposal is categorised by its existing primary use as a dwelling house and is permissible in the zone.
Exhibition
Details of the proposal were publicly exhibited in accordance with Appendix 1: Public Notification and Advertising Procedures of the Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP) 2009. Six (6) submissions were received during the exhibition period.
Consultation
External
External consultation was not required as assumed concurrence to development standards has been returned to Council by the Department of Planning and Environment.
IHAP No. Item 3
DA No. DA-2015/1303
Proposal Residential – Alterations & additions to existing dwelling house
Property 4 Gardenia Terrace, WOONONA
Lot 408 DP848811
Applicant Debbie Farrelly
Responsible Team Development Assessment and Certification – Building and Certification Team (SR)
Page 2
Internal Details of the proposal were referred to Council’s Stormwater Development Engineer for their respective assessment. Satisfactory referral advice was provided in this instance. Assessment considerations of internal groups as relates to relevant Chapters of the WDCP 2009 are presented at section 2.3.1 of the report.
Main Issues
The main issues identified within the assessment process are:
• Variation to Development Standard 4.4 FSR of the WLEP 2009; and
• Consistency with development expectations within a site affected by various 88b instruments including but not limited to the following:
− The external appearance of any structures or building erected upon the burdened lot shall not be altered without the prior consent in writing of Magnolia Green Residents Association Incorporated provided that such consent shall not be refused where the materials and colours to be used are consistent with the materials and colours used in construction of the original dwelling both as to quality, appearance and substance.
This instrument is indicative of the intent of single dwelling houses contained within this estate as approved under DA-1990/287 which approved the detached single storey dwellings within this terrace.
Conclusion
The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 and all relevant Council DCPs, Codes and Policies and found to be unsatisfactory.
Whilst two (2) storey dwelling houses are permitted in the R2 land use zone with development consent, the proposal is non-compliant with provisions relating to the floor space ratio and the proposal involves a variation to this development standard. A variation request statement has not been provided for the non-compliance in accordance with Development Standard 4.6 Exceptions to development standards of the WLEP 2009.
It is considered that the proposed development has not been satisfactorily designed given the nature and characteristics of the site and is likely to result in a significant adverse impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding streetscape.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that DA-2015/1303, be refused subject to the draft reasons for refusal provided at Attachment 2.
• Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2015.
1.2 PROPOSAL
The proposal seeks consent for the construction of an additions to an existing approved dwelling house, which comprises the following:
• Partial demolition of the existing roof; and
• Second floor addition located directly above the existing building envelope that includes an art studio, storage area, bathroom and balcony;
• Roof to be consistent with the pitch of the existing dwelling house, with one portion of the roof to be skillion; and
• Plans identify the proposed additions as being weatherboard cladding with a brick feature blade wall. The existing face brick to be rendered paint finish. A schedule of colours has not been supplied.
1.3 BACKGROUND
Past Development Application History
The subject site was created as a result of the development consent DA-1990/287 issued on 21 September 1990, for ‘Subdivision and 79 Dwellings’ of Lot 11 TCC5733. Since this date, the site has the following development history:
10/02/ 1997 BC-1997/116 Brick Cottage Roofed with Tiles Approved
Page 4
26/03/1997 BA-1997/322 Pergola Approved
Pre-lodgement Meeting
No pre-lodgement meeting was held in relation to the development application and there is no record of any customer request entries by the applicant through Council’s Duty Building Surveyor.
Current Development Application History
The subject application was lodged with Council 13 October 2015. An assessment was undertaken the issues identified were the excessive floor space ratio (FSR) (0.53:1) and the proposed development occurring within the 8 metre rear setback without a variation statement being supplied. The applicant was subsequently notified of these issues in writing on 30 October 2015.
Public Notification ceased on 03 November 2015 with six (6) submissions being received by Council. Additional information was received by Council on 13 November 2015. It was noted that the floor space ratio had been reduced to 0.503:1 and no variation statement supplied for the now minor encroachment into the rear setback. It was also considered a small balcony along the southern side of the dwelling was unwarranted given the potential for overlooking into the southern adjoining dwelling. The applicant was asked to address these matters in a letter dated 18 November 2015.
The applicant provided a response to Council’s letter on 26 November 2015. The response disputed the floor space ratio calculation and did not remove the southern balcony. A variation statement to support the minor encroachment into the 8 metre rear setback was supplied. No further information was requested from the applicant.
Customer service actions
The property does not have any outstanding customer service actions.
1.4 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 4 Gardenia Terrace, Woonona and is included within the estate known as ‘Magnolia Green Estate. The title reference is Lot 408 DP848811. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of 361.1m2.
The site is located on the western side of Gardenia Terrace and contains a single storey brick veneer dwelling, the dominant feature of the dwelling being the double garage that fronts Gardenia Terrace. The site is void of any significant vegetation and is relatively flat.
Gardenia Terrace contains nine (9) allotments that are also characterised by single storey brick veneer dwellings. Nearby cross streets of Abelia Terrace and Tulip way contain two (2) storey multi dwelling houses.
Page 5
Figure 1: Aerial photograph
Property constraints
Council records identify the subject lot as being affected by the following constraints:
• Bushfire Prone;
• Medium to High Flood Risk; and
• Filled Land.
1.5 CONSULTATION
INTERNAL CONSULTATION
Details of the proposal were referred to Council’s Stormwater Development Engineer who offered no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of reasonable and relevant conditions of approval, should development consent be granted.
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION
External consultation was not required.
REFERRAL TO INDEPENDENT HEARING AND ASSESSMENT PANEL (IHAP)
The development has been assessed against Council’s IHAP Charter selection criteria and requires referral to IHAP pursuant to Clause 1.4 of the IHAP Charter as the application seeks to vary a development standard contained within the WLEP 2009.
Page 6
Clause 4.4 identifies that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map identifies a maximum permitted FSR of 0.5:1, whereas the proposal will result in a FSR of 0.51:1, being 4.5m² over the permitted FSR for the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT
(1) Matters for consideration—general
In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:
(a) the provisions of:
(i) any environmental planning instrument, and See section 2.1
(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and
See section 2.2
(iii) any development control plan, and See section 2.3
(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and
See section 2.4
(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,
See section 2.5
(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),
See section 2.6
that apply to the land to which the development application relates,
(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,
See section 2.7
(c) the suitability of the site for the development, See section 2.8
(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, See section 2.9
(e) the public interest. See section 2.10
Page 7
2.1 SECTION 79C 1(A)(I) ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND
7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application
Under Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land, a consent authority is required to consider whether a proposed development site is affected by soil or other contaminants before granting consent. There is no previous history of other land uses that could be considered to present as a contamination risk. The site is therefore considered suitable for the proposed development and consistent with SEPP 55 requirements.
2.1.1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004 SEPP BASIX applies to the development.
In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Regulations and SEPP 2004 a BASIX Certificate has been submitted in support of the application demonstrating that the proposed scheme achieves the BASIX targets.
WOLLONGONG LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2009
Part 1 Preliminary
Clause 1.4 Definitions
Whilst the proposal is for additions to an existing structure, the primary use of the site is that of a dwelling house. Dwelling house means ‘a building containing only one (1) dwelling’.
1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments
1.9A(1) of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009 stipulates that ‘for the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose’.
This statement implies that the various 88b instruments relating to built character and form of the Magnolia Green Estate may or may not apply to Council’s assessment of the proposal against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009 and/or relevant Chapters contained with the Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP) 2009.
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the 88b instrument is indicative of the intent for the overall development of the estate as detailed in stamped plans and documents associated with DA-1990/287. It is expected that consistency with the external appearance of any structures or buildings erected upon these burdened lot shall be maintained so as not to result in a product that conflicts with the original dwellings both as to quality, appearance and substance.
Page 8
This instrument is indicative of the intent of single dwelling houses contained within this estate as approved under DA-1990/287 which approved the detached single storey dwellings within this terrace.
Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development
Clause 2.2 – zoning of land to which Plan applies
The zoning map identifies the land as being zoned R2 Low Density Residential
Figure 2: WLEP 2009 zoning map
Clause 2.3 – Zone objectives and land use table
The objectives of the zone are as follows:
• ‘To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment; and
• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents’.
The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to these objectives as the development is a residential use that achieves the low density controls for the land.
Part 4 Principal development standards
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings
The maximum permissible building height for the land is 9 metres and the proposed building height is 7.2 metres.
Page 9
Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio
Maximum FSR permitted for the zone: 0.5:1
Site Area: 361.1m²
Gross Floor Area: 184.92
FSR proposed 0.51:1
The following figures identify Council’s calculation with regards to gross floor area:
Figure 3: Ground Floor Gross Floor Area Calculation
Page 10
Figure 4: First Floor Gross Floor Area Calculation
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards
The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide some level of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development and to achieve better outcomes for and from development in particular circumstances. As such, consent may be granted for development which would contravene development standards, in this case a non-compliant floor space ratio, as specified in Clauses 4.4 of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (Floor Space Ratio Map).
However, consent can only be granted for development which contravenes a development standard if the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant to do so. The written statement must demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
In this instance, the applicant has failed to request such a variation and has not demonstrated how compliance with the relevant standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as per LEC Decision Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] and has further failed to demonstrate the environmental planning grounds to warrant contravening this standard.
Rather, the applicant has disputed Council’s interpretation of gross floor area.
Page 11
Figure 4: Gross Floor Area Calculations as determined by applicant
The applicant was advised that the void next to the stairs landing served no purpose and contributed to the bulk of the building, although it was not included within the gross floor area calculations. However, the portion of floor area exiting the stairwell was included within the gross floor area definition. The applicant has argued that this area is to be excluded as follows:
‘A drawing A10 issue A dated 9/11/15 included a GFA calculation for the Level One Floor level. The measurement of 77.61 m2excluded the area for common vertical circulation and void. The stair landings are part of the stair circulation. The width of the landings are consistent with the width of the stair along the whole length and are not considered useable floor space. The restricted width does not lend itself to any use additional to circulation. The landing are designated as part of the area for vertical circulation and excluded from the GFA floor space calculation. For the proposed alteration and addition to the existing dwelling, the Gross Floor Area for the ground floor is 102.94 m2and for level one floor is 77.61 m2.Thetotal GFA is180.55 m2. With a site area of 361.1 m2, the proposed Floor Space Ratio is 0.5: 1. This complies with the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) as shown on the Floor Space Ratio Map for the subject lot’.
Notwithstanding the above, the Assessing Officer, obtained copies of plans from past Development Applications and Building Certificates for all properties along Magnolia Terrace taken from the Abelia Terrace and Tulip Way intersection. The floor space ratio for each was calculated in accordance with the definition of gross floor area contained within the WLEP 2009 and WDCP 2009 and not within the definitions which were current at the time such approvals were granted.
The objectives of the FSR development standard are to:
a) ‘to provide an appropriate correlation between the size of a site and the extent of any development on that site,
b) to establish the maximum development density and intensity of land use, taking into account the availability of infrastructure to service that site and the vehicle and pedestrian traffic the development will generate,
c) to ensure buildings are compatible with the bulk and scale of the locality’.
Whilst there is no evidence that suggests that objective (b) is not met in terms of the availability of infrastructure and vehicle and pedestrian traffic generation, objective a) has the effect of determining the size of a building relative to the site area, that is the larger the site, the larger the building and conversely, a small site would only suit a small building. The FSR for the site contemplates a building with a gross floor area (GFA) that is half the site area and provides guidance as to the scale of development that would be suitable for the site.
In assessing compatibility, the objectives relating to FSR envisage that dwellings will be of varying size depending on the area of land on which they are erected.
It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.
The desired future character of Gardenia Terrace is to retain the low density and that any additions should be designed to retain the natural attributes of the immediate locality. Any new dwellings or major alterations and additions to existing dwellings should be designed to minimise the scale and bulk of the development through well-articulated building forms.
It is considered that the proposal is of a bulk and scale that exceeds that character. Those physical impacts will adversely affect the streetscape and not be in harmony with the immediate character of Gardenia Terrace.
Given the above, Council cannot vary this development standard.
It is considered that Clause 4.6 has not been adequately addressed.
Page 13
Part 7 Local provisions – general
Clause 7.1 Public utility infrastructure The development site is currently serviced by utilities which can be augmented to accommodate the proposal. Draft conditions at Attachment 4 require the plans to be submitted to Sydney water for their requirements. Clause 7.3 Flood planning area The proposal is identified as being affected by medium to high flood risk. Conditions of approval could be provided to mitigate these risks.
2.2 SECTION 79C 1(A)(II) ANY PROPOSED INSTRUMENT
None applicable
2.3 SECTION 79C 1(A)(III) ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN
WOLLONGONG DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2009
CHAPTER B1 – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
4.0 General Residential controls
Controls/objectives Comment Compliance
4.1 Maximum Number of Storeys
• R2 max height of 9m or two storey
• In R2 Low Density Residential zones, where development occurs within the 8m rear setback the development is limited to single storey
• Two storey dwelling house; maximum height is 7.2 metres
• Development within 8 metres of rear boundary is single storey
Yes
Does Not Comply
4.2 Front Setbacks
• Infill 6m minimum, but can be less dependent on street character
• Garages and carports 5.5m minimum
• The existing garage has a 3.5m front setback. The proposed first floor is in keeping with this reduced setback. The proposed first floor terrace may detract from the existing double garage that dominates this portion of the streetscape.
Considered acceptable
4.3 Side and Rear Setbacks
• Wall Setback: 0.9m min
• Walls exceeding 7m overall height min 3m
• Eave Setback: 0.45m
• Rear Setback 0.9m
• Northern side boundary setback to first floor additions: 1.2m and southern side boundary 1.4m.
• Walls do not exceed 7m height from the natural ground level.
Yes
Page 14
4.4 Landscaped Area
• Minimum Required 20% permeable area capable of growing trees, shrubs, groundcover and/or lawn.
• 50% behind the building line to the primary road
• Integrated with drainage design
Much of the site is hardstand with minimal opportunity to provide additional landscaping. The proposed additions are contained solely within the existing footprint and no further reduction in landscaping would occur.
Proposal does not impact on the existing arrangement of the site
4.5 Private Open Space
• 24m2 of private open space must be directly accessible from the living areas; min width of 4m and no steeper than 1:50.
• Not to be located on side boundaries or front yards without variation.
Private open space within the subject site is provided at the rear of the ground floor dwelling under an existing pergola.
Yes
4.6 Solar Access Requirements
• Windows to living rooms of adjoining dwellings must receive at least 3hrs continuous sunlight between 9.00am - 3.00pm on 21 June.
• At least 50% of the private open areas of adjoining residential properties must receive at least 3hrs continuous sunlight between 9.00am - 3.00pm on June 21.
• Shadow diagrams will be required by Council for 9am, 12pm, 3pm for the 21 June for two storey dwellings.
Given the orientation of the lots, living rooms and private open space of adjoining residences will not receive continuous sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm June 21. Whilst overshadowing is unavoidable, the applicant has not mitigated these impacts by providing a non-compliant floor space ratio and an overall development that conflicts with the 88b instrument.
Considered unacceptable
4.7 Building Character and Form
• Design, height and siting of a new dwelling-house or secondary dwelling must respond to its site context
• New dwelling-houses within established residential areas should be sympathetic with the existing character of the immediate locality.
• All residential buildings must be designed with building frontages and entries clearly addressing the street frontage.
• Where garages are proposed on the front elevation they must be articulated from the front façade.
The subject site is entirely flat. The proposed additions are considered excessive in terms of bulk and scale and not considered to be sympathetic with the existing character of the immediate locality.
No change to the existing side entry is proposed.
Existing
Considered unacceptable
Page 15
4.8 Fences
• Fences must be constructed to allow natural flow of stormwater or runoff.
• Fences within front and secondary building lines should be mainly constructed of transparent fence materials.
• Any fence or related retaining wall within the front setback from the primary road frontage must be a max 1.2m in height
No changes proposed to existing fencing.
N/A
4.9 Car parking and Access
• 1 space per dwelling with a GFA of less than 125m²
• 2 spaces per dwelling with a GFA of greater than 125m²
• Car parking spaces may be open hard stand space, driveway, carport or a garage.
• Garage door facing roads–not greater than 50% of the width of the dwelling.
• Garages must be setback min of 5.5 from front boundary.
• Driveways shall be separated from side boundaries by a minimum of 1m.
• Driveways shall have a max cross-over width of 3m.
It is noted that the dimensions of the existing double garage do not comply with the Australian Standard or Council’s DCP requirements. However, as these structures are already existing and no changes are proposed, no further assessment with regards to carparking is required.
Proposal does not impact on the existing arrangement of the site
4.10 Storage Facilities
• 3 bedroom- 10m3 storage volume to 5m2 storage area
The proposal includes a storage area under the proposed stairs less than 10m³
Acceptable
4.11 Site Facilities
• letterboxes in an accessible location
• air-con, satellite dishes and other ancillary structures to be located away from street frontage, not in a place where they are a skyline feature and adequately setback
No changes proposed to existing site facilities. Further, the proposal could be conditioned to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA)
Yes
4.12 Fire Brigade Servicing
• All dwellings located within 60m of a fire hydrant
The proposal is within 60 metres of a fire hydrant
Yes
4.13 Services
• Encourage early consideration of servicing requirements
No changes proposed to existing site services.
Yes
Page 16
4.14 Development near the coastline
• Must minimise built intrusions into coastal landscape
• Retain views to the ocean from roads and public spaces
• Maintain buildings consistent with coastal character
Development is not within the coastline.
N/A
4.15 View sharing
• To protect and enhance view sharing, significant view corridors
• A range of view sharing measures to be considered for building design
Views to the Illawarra Escarpment are not expected to be lost.
Yes
4.16. Retaining walls None proposed N/A
4.17 Swimming Pools None proposed N/A
4.18 Development near railway corridors and major busy roads
Not near a railway corridor or major busy road
N/A
4.19 Additional controls for semi-detached dwellings – alterations and additions
Not a semi-detached dwelling N/A
4.20 Additional controls for Dual Occupancies minimum site width
Not a dual occupancy N/A
4.21 Additional controls for Dual Occupancies –building character and form
Not a dual occupancy N/A
Development Control 4.1.2(4) requires development within the 8m rear setback to be single storey. The applicant proposes a rear setback of 7.35m to the Bedroom 2. On its own, this is not considered problematic as this control is designed to ensure that overlooking and overshadowing does not occur on adjoining residences. Given the location of this bedroom and the fact that the rear adjoining site is a public park, a variation to this setback could be supported.
However, given that the proposal exceeds the floor space ratio it is considered unreasonable to support a variation to this setback. A small reduction of the first floor would ensure compliance with this development control and floor space ratio.
Notwithstanding, It is considered that the 88b instrument is indicative of the intent for the overall development of the estate as detailed in stamped plans and documents associated with DA-1990/287. It is expected that consistency with the external appearance of any structures or buildings erected upon these burdened lot shall be maintained so as not to result in a product that conflicts with the original dwellings both as to quality, appearance and substance. The proposed second storey is not in keeping with the intent for this estate, and is inconsistent with the built form and character of this terrace.
CHAPTER D1 – CHARACTER STATEMENTS
Existing Character of Woonona Woonona is a residential suburb which over the last two decades has experienced considerable growth with the release of several new residential housing estates. Woonona contains a variety of housing forms, including detached dwellings and medium density housing in the form of townhouses
Page 17
and villas. The older residential suburbs of Woonona predominantly contain single storey weatherboard and brick dwellings on mid to larger sized allotments of land. The newer residential estates in Woonona contain a mix of single and two storey dwellings, predominantly of a face brick or rendered brick wall and pitched roof tile construction on smaller lots together with some new medium density housing in the form of townhouses and residential flat buildings.
Desired Character of Woonona Woonona is likely to experience continued growth as a result of the developing residential release areas as well as the replacement of older dwelling stock with larger dwelling-houses. Woonona should remain a relative low density residential suburb, except for along the Princes Highway and in close proximity to Woonona railway station where medium density housing in the form of townhouses and residential flat buildings will be encouraged. Individually designed dwellings with a distinctive coastal character are encouraged for the eastern coastal part of Woonona. Balconies should be lightly framed in stainless steel and / or timber finishes, rather than of brick or masonry construction. For the central and western parts of Woonona, dwelling-houses and medium density housing should be of a face brickwork wall construction with pitched tile or colourbond roof forms preferred.
Consistency with Character Statement Whilst the development design features are considered to be generally consistent with the desired future character of Woonona, the proposal’s excessive floor space ratio cannot be supported, particularly given the surrounding residential character responds and is indicative of the 88b instrument i.e. being restricted by single storey development.
CHAPTER E3: CAR PARKING, ACCESS, SERVICING/LOADING FACILITIES AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Given the proposed parking requirements for the site remain unchanged by the proposal, no further assessment is required against the provisions of this Chapter.
CHAPTER E6: LANDSCAPING
The proposal does not and cannot be reasonably conditioned to comply with the development controls contained within this Chapter. Whilst a landscape concept plan was not supplied by the applicant, much of the site is hardstand with no potential for landscaping to occur. Given the proposal is located within an existing footprint and the lack of potential for landscaping, it was considered unreasonable to request a landscaping concept plan as such a plan would offer no value to the determination .
CHAPTER E7: WASTE MANAGEMENT
A Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan was provided in support of the proposal and is considered to satisfactorily address this Chapter. Residential waste collection is under the same arrangements that exist for the other residential developments in the street.
CHAPTER E14 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standard draft conditions could be proposed to manage stormwater on the site during and post construction.
Page 18
CHAPTER E16 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT
A bushfire report did not accompany the supporting documentation. An assessment of the proposal has indicated a BAL rating of 12.5. Standard draft conditions could be proposed to mitigate bushfire risk.
CHAPTER E22 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Standard draft conditions could be proposed to manage soil erosion and sediment control on the site during construction.
WOLLONGONG SECTION 94A DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN (2013) The estimated cost of works is $183,000.00. A section 94A development contribution is therefore applicable as the threshold is $100 000.
2.4 SECTION 79C 1(A)(IIIA) ANY PLANNING AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO UNDER SECTION 93F, OR ANY DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT THAT A DEVELOPER HAS OFFERED TO ENTER INTO UNDER SECTION 93F
There are no planning agreements entered into or any draft agreement offered to enter into under S93F which affect the development.
2.5 SECTION 79C 1(A)(IV) THE REGULATIONS (TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY PRESCRIBE MATTERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH)
92 What additional matters must a consent authority take into consideration in determining a development application?
The site is located within the Coastal Zone however the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 only applies to the seaward part of the LGA.
93 Fire safety and other considerations
Conditions of approval could be provided with regards to fire safety.
94 Consent authority may require buildings to be upgraded
Conditions of approval could be provided to with regards to building upgrade.
2.6 SECTION 79C 1(A)(V) ANY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN (WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COASTAL PROTECTION ACT
There is no Coastal Zone Management Plan currently applicable to the land.
Page 19
2.7 SECTION 79C 1(B) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT
Context and Setting:
The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is surrounded by low density development with a variety of single and two storey dwellings with floor space ratios not exceeding 0.41:1. Although the proposal is a two storey dwelling house, it is not considered to be low density given the non-compliance with development standards and controls that define the bulk and scale of a development. The visual impact of the proposal will dominate the site and the streetscape..
In summary, the proposal has been assessed with regard to the amenity impacts from the development, the zoning, permissible height and FSR for the land, and existing and future character of the area, and is considered to be incompatible with the local area.
Access, Transport and Traffic:
No alterations to the existing traffic arrangements are proposed.
Public Domain:
As the proposal is infill development, the impacts on the public domain are minimal.
Utilities:
The proposal is not envisaged to place an unreasonable demand on utilities supply. The subdivision process creating this lot has ensured that utilities are available to the proposed development.
Heritage:
The dwelling house was built c. 1940’s and is a relatively subdued example to vernacular The subject site is not a locally significant heritage item.
Other land resources:
The proposal is not envisaged to impact upon valuable land resources.
Water:
The site is able to be serviced by Sydney Water. The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable water consumption, and a BASIX certificate has been issued with respect to the proposal.
Soils:
The proposal is not expected to result in significant impacts on soils. No excavation is required for the development.
Air and Microclimate:
The proposal is not expected to result in negative impacts on air or microclimate.
Flora and Fauna:
There is no significant vegetation removal proposed or required. The site is entirely hardstand.
Page 20
Waste:
A condition could be attached to any consent granted that an appropriate receptacle be in place for any waste generated during the construction.
Energy:
The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable energy consumption. A BASIX certificate has been provided in support of the proposal.
Noise and vibration:
Draft conditions could be attached to any consent granted to ensure that noise and vibration could be minimised during construction, demolition, or other works.
Natural hazards:
The site is identified as being affected by bushfire risk, filled land and medium to high flood risk. Any risks could be mitigated should consent be issued for any development on the subject site.
Technological hazards:
There are no technological hazards affecting the site that would prevent the proposal.
Safety, Security and Crime Prevention:
This application does not result in greater opportunities for criminal or antisocial behaviour.
Social Impact:
The proposal is not expected to create negative social impact.
Economic Impact:
The proposal is not expected to result in negative economic impacts.
Site Design and Internal Design:
The proposal result in an exception to development standard 4.4 of the WLEP 2009. A request to vary this development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the WLEP 2009 was not submitted and these considerations have been discussed above at section 2.3.1.
Construction:
Conditions of consent could be recommended in relation to construction impacts such as hours of work, erosion and sedimentation controls, and use of any crane, hoist, plant or scaffolding.
A condition could be attached to any consent granted that all works are to be in compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
Cumulative Impacts:
The proposal is expected to result in negative cumulative impacts given the excessive floor space ratio that will increase the bulk and scale of the development within a low density residential area.
The proposal is inconsistent with the external appearance of buildings already erected within this estate in terms of appearance and substance i.e. two storeys, altered roof pitch etc. The proposed second storey is not in keeping with the intent for this estate, and is inconsistent with the built form and character of this terrace.
Page 21
2.8 SECTION 79C 1(C) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Does the proposal fit in the locality?
The proposal is considered inappropriate with regard to the zoning of the site and is expected to result in negative impacts on the amenity of the locality. Whilst it is acknowledged the site is less than the standard residential allotment, the floor space ratio development standard envisages that dwellings will be of varying size depending on the area of land on which they are erected and is not to promote exceedance of floor space ratios. The proposal results in a bulk and scale that exceeds the existing or desired character of the existing area.
Are the site attributes conducive to development?
There are no site constraints that cannot be addressed through conditions that would prevent the proposal.
2.9 SECTION 79C 1(D) ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT OR THE REGULATIONS
Details of the proposal were publically exhibited in accordance with Appendix 1: Public Notification and Advertising of the WDCP 2009. Six (6) submissions were received following public notification with an outline of these concerns being outline below:
1. ‘The proposed development is outside of the covenant as stipulated in the instrument’.
Planner’s Response
Council is not empowered to release, vary or modify such restrictions. Development Standard 1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments of the Wollongong Local Environment Plan (WLEP) 2009 stipulates that ‘for the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose’.
Refer to comment at 1.9A of this report.
2. ‘The zoning of the land is R2 low density _ residential flat building, this development does not comply’.
Planner’s Response
The proposal involves the alterations and additions to a single storey dwelling house. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential which permits a variety of residential accommodation including dwelling houses.
3. ‘The floor space ratio, 1.5:1 exceeds the allowable 0.5:1as per the WDCP2009 the existing building already exceeds the allowable FSR so the addition will grossly exceed the FSR as stipulated in WDCP2009’.
Planner’s Response
The floor space ratio proposed by the applicant is 0.51:1 which does not comply with the Development Standard 4.4 Floor space ratio of the WLEP 2009.
Page 22
4. ‘Exceeds site coverage in WDCP2009’.
Planner’s Response
There are no development controls within the WDCP 2009 that refer to site coverage.
5. ‘Privacy_ unreasonable overlooking by neighbours into my property and note how many windows on 1st floor overlooking neighbours directly site constraint, they have small back yard, the existing house is already approximately 95% of the building envelope’.
Planner’s Response
Windows associated with the first floor additions are primarily bedroom windows. As such, these rooms are not associated with rooms that have high privacy impacts. The potential for overlooking is minimal. The proposed first floor family room is located towards the front of the street which encourages visual surveillance of the street and not over adjoining residences.
There is no building envelope identified on the deposited plan. It is noted that the subject site does not achieve the current landscaping requirements of Chapter B1: Residential Development of the WDCP 2009. However, the proposed additions are contained within the existing footprint and therefore have no impact on the existing backyard (private open space) or landscaping.
6. ‘The setback to the western boundary (backyard) according to their demolition plan is 3.3m. This hardly justifies reasonable site constraint to allow for a 2nd storey addition’.
Planner’s Response
The WLEP 2009 permits development up to 9 metres on the subject site whilst the WDCP 2009 permits two (2) storey dwellings within this zone. The ground floor setback is existing and cannot be revisited.
Development Control 4.1.2(4) requires development within the 8m rear setback to be single storey. The applicant proposes a rear setback of 7.35m to the Bedroom 2. On its own, this is not considered problematic as this control is designed to ensure that overlooking and overshadowing does not occur on adjoining residences. Given the location of this bedroom and the fact that the rear adjoining site is a public park, a variation to this setback could be supported.
Notwithstanding, given that the proposal exceeds the floor space ratio it is considered unreasonable to support a variation to this setback. A small reduction of the first floor would ensure compliance with this development control and floor space ratio.
7. ‘Solar access_ the shadow diagram show that the neighbouring home will be in complete shadow at the June solstice ( June 21) and during the winter months will receive no more than a few hours of sunlight total’.
Planner’s Response
Given the orientation of the lots, living rooms and private open space of adjoining residences will not receive continuous sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm June 21. Whilst overshadowing is unavoidable, the applicant has not mitigated these impacts by providing a non-compliant floor space ratio.
Page 23
In addition, the proposal is inconsistent with the external appearance of buildings already erected within this estate in terms of appearance and substance i.e. two storeys, altered roof pitch etc. The proposed second storey results in an excessive amount of overshadowing that would not occur if the dwelling remained as a single storey development.
8. ‘FILL ON SITE _ the homes were all built on filled land that is retained at the rear by a an extremely large retaining wall that is bounded by council land. This retaining wall will not support the weight of a second storey addition. A geotechnical and engineering report must be obtained to establish that the retaining wall and council land at the rear will not be impacted by a 2 storey dwelling’.
Planner’s Response
Conditions of consent have been supplied by Council’s Stormwater Development Engineer to mitigate such concerns, should the proposal be granted consent.
9. ‘The development is part of a designed housing subdivision and there are restrictions regarding the 88B instrument that apply to restrictions as to user D90/287(am) Habitable floor levels shall be set at a minimum of 0.5 m and an appropriate restriction as to user shall be created under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act which specifies the minimum floor level for each allotment in accordance with the above mention criteria’.
Planner’s Response
Refer to Planner’s response at Point 1. In addition, no changes are proposed to the existing habitable floor levels.
10. ‘Design guidelines and conditions relating to MANOLIA GREEN PROJECT D90/287(am) Eg. Living area of dwelling are not to open to outdoor living areas which are private and not directly overlooked by adjoining dwellings. Dwelling to have a common design theme which ties them together visually. All the homes in Gardenia terrace are single level dwellings’.
Planner’s Response
Refer to Planner’s response at Point 1.
11. It is bush fire prone affected land the guidelines as to distance and height restrictions from neighbour must also be taken into account also’.
Planner’s Response
The subject site is affected by a BAL rating of 12.5. Conditions of approval could be imposed to mitigate any bushfire risk.
12. ‘The soccer field at the rear has games that the Bullli soccer Club charges a fee for entry to watch the games and this second storey will impact on. The privacy of the club games’.
Planner’s Response
Users of a public recreation facility owned by all rate payers do not have exclusive viewing rights of these fields. CPTED principles encourage visual surveillance of public areas. The second storey additions will not be utilised for the purposes of a free grandstand.
Page 24
13. ‘The current original residence is in good order and is still in the Heritage style and complies with colours and building materials approved in the original DA of some 20 years ago in keeping with the other dwellings standing within Magnolia Green Estate. The proposed DA depicts a two story dwelling of somewhat modern architecture nothing like the surrounding single story heritage style dwellings’.
Planner’s Response
Chapter D1: Character Statements of the Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP) 2009, in addition to those controls contained within Chapter B1: Residential Development promote the modernisation of existing dwellings within Woonona. The subject site has no heritage value.
14. ‘The proposed dwelling would detract from the ambiance and beauty that currently exists within the estate as it would be vastly different from the all other structures within the estate not only in looks but building materials. Eg Colourbond roofing, weatherboard cladding and rendered brickwork. It would also be the only two storey dwelling situated in Gardenia Terrace’.
Planner’s Response
Beauty with regards to existing or future development is subjective. Whilst, Gardenia Terrace contains nine (9) allotments that are all single storey, adjoining cross streets contain two (2) storey multi dwelling houses that provide the dominant features to this estate. Conditions of consent could be imposed that require the development to provide colours in muted bushland tones to ensure loud colours do not dominate this terrace.
15. ‘Gardenia Terrace is a small cul-de-sac street. There is only two visitor parking spaces for all
dwellings. During construction there is nowhere for builders vehicles, delivery trucks and machinery to park. Entrance and egress would be severely compromised and cause immense inconvenience to residents as there is only one way in and out of the street’.
Planner’s Response
If consent were to be granted for development on the subject site, conditions of approval could be imposed with regards to the hours of operation for demolition and construction.
16. ‘Proposal will be of a detriment to the sale of other dwellings within the estate’.
Planner’s Response
Council cannot determine the trend of the housing market.
17. ‘Proposal will set an undesirable precedent’.
Planner’s Response
The WLEP 2009 and WDCP 2009 stipulate the controls and its objectives to guide development to ensure undesirable development is not promoted. The applicant’s failure to comply with the Floor Space Ratio would set an undesirable precedent.
Note: Other matters were raised with regards to the applicants allegedly failing to comply with the estates ‘bylaws’. These matters are considered to be internal matters and have no bearing on the assessment of the proposal.
Page 25
Submissions from public authorities
None received.
2.10 SECTION 79C 1(E) THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The proposal is expected to result in an unreasonable impact on the low density residential area within the immediate locality. It is considered inappropriate with consideration to the zoning objectives and the character of the area and is therefore considered to be not in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 and all relevant Council DCPs, Codes and Policies and found to be unsatisfactory.
Dwelling houses including alterations and additions are permitted in the R2 land use zone with development consent, and the proposal is non-compliant with the provisions of the WLEP 2009, notably that relating to floor space ratio.
The proposal involves a variation to the above mentioned development standard which has not been satisfactorily addressed. In addition overlooking from the southern balcony has not been addressed. Whilst it is expected that overshadowing of southern properties is unavoidable, the exceedance of the floor space ratio and the proposed second storey addition that is inconsistent with the 88b instrument that guides the development within the estate approved under DA-1990/278 is considered to exacerbate this issue as discussed within section 2.3.1 of this report.
It is considered that the proposed development has not been satisfactorily designed with regard to bulk and scale given the nature and characteristics of the site and is likely to result in significant adverse impacts on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that DA-2015/1303 be refused subject to the draft reasons of refusal provided at Attachment 2.
3. ATTACHMENTS
1 Architectural Concept Plans
2 Draft Reasons of Refusal
3 Letter to Council from Dept. Planning and Environment
4 Deposited Plan and 88b instrument
PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLINGAT
SECTIONSELEVATIONSLEVEL ONE FLOOR PLANGROUND FLOOR PLANSITE PLANSITE ANALYSISCOVER SHEET/LOCATION PLAN
DRAWING SCHEDULE
150.08 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN150.09 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
SUBJECTSITE
150.10 GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
9/11/15
NTS
31 MARCH 2015150.00 DA2ALTERATION & ADDITION
4 GARDENIA TRRACEWOONONA LOCATION PLAN
COVER SHEETDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Attachment 1 - Architectural Concept Plans
Attachment 2: Draft Reasons of Refusal
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied that the proposed development does not satisfactorily address the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009;
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied that the proposed development does not satisfactorily address Chapters B1: Residential Development of the Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP) 2009;
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied that the proposed development does not satisfactorily address the likely impacts of the development, in terms of built character and form, streetscape, visual impact assessment and the general amenity both within and adjoining the site;
4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied that the proposal contains unresolved issues raised by submission authors relating to overshadowing, privacy, built form and character and overall amenity of the streetscape;
5 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied that the suitability of the site for the proposed development has not been established and as such that it does not fit the locality;
6 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered from the information supplied and in the circumstances of the case, approval of the development, would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development and is therefore considered not to be in the public interest; and
7 Insufficient information has been submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 i.e. compliance with Clause 4.6 of the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009, to enable Council to properly assess the application. In this regard under Clause 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, information was requested in correspondence on 30 October 2015 and 18 November 2015. The information supplied did not address the requests. This determination has been made on the basis of information submitted to date.
