ATTACHMENT 1 CL…... REGULATORY
Application / Ø / DA 03/979 – 18 Rickard Street, GuildfordThis application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.
Proposed Development / Application to demolish a dwelling and associated structures, remove trees and to construct 4 townhouses with basement car parking. The development contains 3 x 3 and 1 x 4 bedroom townhouses.
The proposed development is in the form of one row of dwellings which are orientated perpendicular to the street. The dwellings are two storeys in height. The proposed development has an FSR of 0.579:1.
Description of Site: / The site is located on the eastern side of Rickard Street between Guildford Road and Mountford Avenue. One dwelling presently occupies the site. The site has a frontage of 20.115m to Rickard Street, and a depth of 41.15 with a site area of 827.6m2.
Existing development surrounding this site predominantly comprises residential dwellings.
Background / Ø / The application was submitted to Council on 16 May 2003. An assessment of the application was made and several non-compliances with the LEP & DCP were identified. The application was notified between 27 August 2003 to 17 September 2003 and Council received 10 submissions.
Council received amended plans on 6 November 2003, which made architectural and façade design changes and landscape plan amendments. The amended plans were renotified between 1 December 2003 and 14 December 2003 with 9 submissions being received.
A further set of amended plans were received on 12 February 2004 that reconfigured the basement ramp and parking area to comply with relevant Australian Standards. The last set of amended plans was not notified as the amendment was minor.
Planning Controls / Ø / LEP 2001 – controls of relevance:
§ Residential 2(b) zone – multi-unit housing permissible with development consent.
§ Floor Space Ratio – maximum FSR of 0.6:1 for multi-unit developments
DCP 2001 – Controls of relevance:
§ Multi-unit housing on a mid block site with a east-west orientation
Issues / Ø / Solar access
§ DCP 2001 requires that habitable rooms of adjoining dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sunlight at the winter solstice.
The plan elevations of the overshadowing impacts of the proposal on the dwelling at No. 20 indicate that portions of this dwelling do not receive the required 3 hours of sunlight on June 21 (mid winter)
Comment:
A site inspection was undertaken by Council staff and the owner of No. 20 Rickard Street to properly assess the overshadowing impacts of this adjoining property.
The overshadowing impacts would be on two north facing bedroom windows of the neighbouring dwelling.
The sill heights of these windows however, are at least 2.7m above NGL. If the shadows on these windows were properly plotted in elevation, they would show the windows to receive at least 2 hours or potentially 3 hours of sunlight in mid winter.
The owner of the adjoining property has also indicated to Council staff that despite the overshadowing impacts they raise no objections to the proposal in its current form.
Even so, the overshadowing impacts of the development are within reasonable limits.
First floor to ceiling heights
DCP 2001 specifies a first floor to ceiling height for multi unit housing of 2.7m to habitable rooms in multi-unit dwellings. The submitted plans indicate a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m for the first floor and indicate 2.89 metres for the ground floor.
Comment:
This minor variation to the floor to ceiling height of the first floor is considered satisfactory as:
· The 8m depth of each unit ensures solar penetration and air flow to the first floor
· The reduction in height of the first floor reduces overshadowing impacts and minimizes the bulk of the building when viewed from the street.
Notification / Ø / First Notification
The first notification period was between 29 January 2003 to 19 February 2003. Council received 10 letters objecting to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:
1. Noise and privacy impacts created from each units private open space area
Comment:
The landscaping plan identifies screen plantings along the site boundaries of up to 3m in height. This combined with a 1.8m high fence plus 300mm high lattice screen will ensure that privacy is maintained between dwellings.
The noise impacts generated from the private open space areas is likely to be minimal. Screening and fencing will ensure that any adverse impacts on the adjoining residents is minimised.
2. Traffic - concern is raised that the proposed development will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic significant reduce on street parking opportunities.
Comment:
The addition of dwellings on the site will increase the amount of traffic on surrounding residential streets however it is considered that the local road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic and the development has a sufficient frontage along Rickard Street for some overflow vehicles to park whilst still enabling sufficient on street parking for other users. Furthermore the number of car parking spaces proposed exceeds the requirements of DCP 2001.
3. Streetscape & character - concern has been raised by some objectors that the development will have an adverse impact on the existing character and streetscape of Rickard Street.
Comment:
There will be some changes along the streetscape however the key elements of front setbacks and the retention of the paper bark trees in front of the property will enhance the development and minimize its impact on the streetscape.
4. Overshadowing - some of the objectors have raised concern regarding adverse overshadowing impacts this development may cause to adjoining properties.
Comment:
The layout and setbacks proposed ensure the primary living areas and at least 50% of the private open space areas of both the proposed units and surrounding dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter. As discussed earlier, whilst there might be some adverse impact on the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwelling to the south, the owner of this dwelling has indicated to Council officers that he has no objection to the predicted overshadowing this proposal will create on his property. Consequently on balance the overshadowing impacts are acceptable.
5. Surveillance of the basement carpark - some objectors have raised the concern about potential security problems associated with the use of the basement carpark.
Comment:
The basement car park will be a security carpark with an intercom system. A condition is to be placed on the consent requires a security intercom.
6. Precedent created by approval of this proposal
Comment:
The site is zoned to permit multi unit housing and approval of this application will not create precedent.
7. Demolition - Concern has been raised in regard to the adverse health and environmental impacts of the demolition.
Comment:
Standard conditions have been included in the consent which will control asbestos removal and minimise any adverse impacts the demolition may have on surrounding residents.
8. Impact excavation will have on footings of adjoining dwellings
Comment:
A condition regarding the notification of shoring of adjoining properties has been indicated in the consent.
9. Stormwater runoff - an objector is concerned about adverse impacts the increased runoff this development will generate.
Comment:
In accordance with the requirements of the Upper Parramatta River Trust Catchment Management Handbook and Council’s requirements onsite detention has been incorporated into this development and there will be no increase in stormwater runoff generated from this property in the event of a flood.
10. Garbage provision - concern was raised about the adverse visual impact of rubbish bins associated with the development being placed along Rickard Street frontage.
Comment:
The proposal has a garbage storage area located in the basement carpark. This storage area will help ensure that the rubbish bins do not adversely impact on the streetscape.
11. Adverse impact on property values
Comment:
No documentation has been submitted that the development will have an adverse impact on property values.
12. Tree removal - an adjoining resident is concerned about the adverse impact of tree removal and particularly the retention of large tree on the property.
Comment:
The development proposes the removal of two trees in the western portion of the property and the planting of 11 trees from 4 species and a selection of shrubs and groundcovers from 14 different species. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection to the removal of the 2 trees as the trees are not significant however replacement trees are to be provided as part of the landscaping of the site.
13. Consistency with the neighbourhood character controls in DCP 2001
Comment:
The neighbourhood character controls need to be read in conjunction with the zoning controls and objectives and where there is an inconsistency between the zoning controls and the neighbourhood character requirements then the LEP zoning controls prevail. The development presents as a single dwelling and the front unit provides a sense of address when viewed from Rickard street which helps lessen the impact of the development. The retention of the paper bark trees in the road reserve in-front of the site help soften the developments impact on the streetscape. The design and site planning measures proposed ensure that the conflicts between the neighbourhood character controls and the sites 2(b) zoning are minimised.
14. Section 94 contributions should be spent on open space
Comment:
In accordance with Council’s s.94 plan $9371.00 will be collected in open space contributions which will be spent on establishing parks and public reserves within the south area.
15. Privacy and overlooking - A number of objectors are concerned about the potential adverse impacts of privacy and overlooking into surrounding dwellings and private open space areas of neighboring properties.
Comment:
The development maintains 6m side building setbacks and site planning layout envisaged by DCP 2001 for multi unit housing on sites with an east-west orientation. The windows in rooms on the first storey are bedrooms and bathrooms that are not primary living areas, therefore the likelihood of overlooking from these rooms will be minimal. To further alleviate the objectors concerns a condition has been inserted into the consent requiring a 300mm lattice screen to be erected on top of the 1.8m high boundary fence at the applicants cost.
16. Impact of a rental population living in the units
Comment:
Guildford like a lot of areas in Sydney has a mix of owner occupiers and renters living in the locality. It is not a planning consideration as to whether a building will be tenanted by renters or owner occupiers.
17. Adverse energy efficiency impacts of locating bedrooms on the northern side of the units and the consequential likelihood of each of these rooms being retrofitted with air-conditioning units and the associated visual and noise impacts these units could create.
Comment:
The occupancy of these bedrooms will be at a time when sunlight impacts are minimal, furthermore the harshest sun is from the west and the development only has one bedroom window which faces a westerly direction. DCP 2001 encourages habitable rooms to face the north which is consistent with the proposed development. To alleviate the objectors concern a condition has been inserted into the consent requiring further approval be obtained from Council for the installation of air conditioners.
Second Notification
The second notification period was between 1 December 2003 and 14 December 2003, and Council received 9 submissions.
The following additional issue was raised:
Suitability of the proposed plantings - the neighbour to the north of the development is concerned about the suitability of the proposed Gleditsia trees along the objectors common boundary in so far as leaf drop, root impacts on the objectors property and the adequacy of the tree at planting.
Comment:
Councils Landscape Officer concurs with this issue and has recommended the replacement of this species with either Catalpu bignoides or Pyrus assuriensis. These recommended changes to the planting have been included as a condition of consent.
Conclusion / The proposed development has achieved the design and environmental performance objectives of the DCP 2001. Overall the development will have no adverse impacts of the amenity of the locality or the character and built form of the locality.
All matters required to be considered in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered in the preparation of this report.
Recommendation / Ø / Approval subject to conditions.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
In the Residential 2(b) zone, LEP 2001 aims to encourage low density residential development, including multi unit housing which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and does not compromise the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.
DCP 2001 outlines performance criteria and numerical controls for multi unit housing to ensure that the form and design of the development is compatible with the surrounding area, achieves a high standard of environmental performance and does not adversely impact upon the quality of the amenity of adjoining residential properties.
TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
Control /Requirement
/ Proposal / ComplianceFloor space ratio / 0.6:1 (max) / 0.579:1 / Yes
Height / 2 storeys / 2 storeys / Yes
Frontage / 18m (min) / 20.115m / Yes
Rear setback / 15% of length of site (min)
= 6.175m required / 6.175m / Yes
Soft soil zone / 30% of site area (min) / 30% / Yes
Front setback / 5-9m / 5m / Yes
Side setback
-north
-south / 6m (min)
6m (min) / 6m
6m / Yes
Yes
Private open space / 40m² per dwelling (min) / 40m² (min) / Yes
Storage area / 4m² per dwelling (min) / 4m² (min) / Yes
Floor to ceiling height / 2.7m (min) / 2.7m / Yes
Window head height / 2.7m (min) / 2.7m – Ground floor
2.4m – First floor / No
Parking Spaces / Residents – 7
Visitors – 1 / Residents – 8
Visitors - 1 / Yes
NatHERS rating / 3.5 stars (min) / 3.5 stars / Yes
Solar Access / 3 hours of sunlight to all habitable rooms and 50% of POS areas internal and external to the development between 9am and 3pm on June 21 / The proposal may not allow 2 bedrooms of the adjoining dwelling to receive the required 3 hours of sunlight on June 21 / Likely
G:\Docs\DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM\COMMITTEES\Draft Reports\2004\April 2004\18 Rickard Street, Guildford_Summary Sheet - AC.doc