No. 11A Prospect Street, Waverley – New 2 Storey Dwelling house, underground parking and lap pool (LD 116/03)
Report dated 23 May 2003 from the Development & Building Unit.
Recommendation: That the application be deffered in accordance with the attached report.
|Save & Excepted by –
Reason - for reasons of proximity to Heritage conservation area and impact of modern building in largely traditional streetscape.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER TONY QUILL
SITE: 11A PROSPECT STREET, WAVERLEY
DATE REC’D: 26 FEBRUARY 2003
APPLICANT: PARIS DEVELOPMENT GROUP
OWNER: AS APPLICANT
Erect a new two storey residence with underground carparking and a lap pool.
ZONING: Res 2(a)
CLASSIFICATION: Class 1a & 10b
1. The proposal is for the construction of a two storey dwelling with basement carparking and a swimming pool.
3. Council’s Heritage Architect has raised no objection subject to conditions.
Location: the site is located on the western side of Prospect Street between the intersections with Victoria Street and Bronte Road.
Dimension/Area: 7.92 x 39.32m = 311.4sqm.
The existing buildings on the site are 2 single storey fibro-clad dwellings and an open carport that is located on the street frontage.
To the north of the subject site is a row of terrace houses that are identified as Heritage items under Waverley Council’s LEP. To the south is a single storey dwelling. To the east are predominantly two storey dwellings.
A previous application LD 904/01 for a similar development was withdrawn due to an issue of a right -of-way in favour of the neighbour to the north.
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling consisting ;
DCP No. 1 - requirements
Permitted or Required
0.81 : 1
0.78 : 1
(See DBU comment)
|No (see comments)
||6.4m x 6.5m
COMMENTS ON TABLED INFORMATION
The proposal generally complies with the design guidelines of DCP No. 2.
Height: A small section of the roof exceeds the height guidelines of DCP No. 2. However, as the design matches the existing terraces adjacent to the subject site, the proposal is considered to meet the objectives of Section 3.0 ‘Building Height’ of DCP No.2.
Floor Space Ratio: While the FSR is exceeded by 12sqm (5%), it is considered satisfactory, as 31.7sqm (attic) and 22sqm (in addition to 30sqm at basement level) does not contribute to the bulk of the building.
Side setback: The neighbour to the north has raised concerns regarding the section of wall that is sited on the northern boundary stating that it results in unreasonable bulk. The responsible officer agrees and recommends that the proposal is setback 900mm from the northern boundary. It should be noted that the allotment width is 7.9 metres
The owner to the south has raised concerns regarding overshadowing, which is exacerbated by the siting of the southern elevation to the southern boundary. To reduce impact, it is recommended that the ceiling height to bedrooms 2 and 3 is reduced to 2.6m and the pitch of the roof above be reduced to 5 degrees.
MERIT ASSESSMENT ON OTHER MATTERS
Streetscape & Visual Impacts: The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of DCP No. 2 in regard to streetscape & visual impact as the scale and appearance of the proposal, subject to minor modification, matches that of the existing terrace houses. The suggested modifications include the proposed dormers to the eastern elevation to match those of the adjacent terraces with the removal of the interstitial glazed infill.
Both the height of the side boundary fences and the proposed planting to the sides of the driveway will reduce the impact on the streetscape.
Council’s heritage Architect has recommended that the applicant submit a detailed finishes and colour schedule demonstrating compatibility with the adjacent heritage listed terraces.
Privacy & Noise Control: To ameliorate privacy concerns from the neighbouring property to the north, it is recommended that the lower section of the window to the northern elevation of bedroom 3 is to be fixed and to have translucent glass to a height of 1700mm above floor level.
Landscaping & Open Space: The submitted landscape plan is considered satisfactory.
Energy efficiency & solar Access: These matters are considered satisfactory in the circumstances due to the restriction in allotment width. The proposal has been designed to maintain a reasonable level of sunlight for the occupants and adjoining neighbours to the south.
The following submissions were received in relation to the application:
|Property||Location||Summary of Objections|
|11 Prospect Street||North||
|15 Prospect Street||South||
COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS
Concrete over right-of-way: The neighbour to the north has concerns regarding accessing services if a concrete footpath is laid over the right-of-way. However, it is considered that services would be accessible as with Council’s footpaths. The plans indicate that the path is to be slightly lower than the existing ground level, therefore, the issue of blocking ventilation along the neighbouring property should not be a problem.
Setback: As above.
Privacy: See ‘Privacy & Noise Control’.
Archaeological Site: Concerns raised by the neighbour to the north regarding the reported existence of archaeological remnants of former stables on the site will be addressed as recommended by Council’s Heritage architect by a condition of development consent should the applicant meet with recommendation by the DBU for deferral. The condition will read as follows;
In order to document archaeological remnants on the site, Council requires the completion of an archaeological survey of the site including recording of remnant features related to the adjacent terrace group. The survey and report are to be undertaken by qualified archaeologists and prepared in accordance with guidelines of the NSW heritage Office. Details are to be submitted to Council prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.
Overshadowing: The submitted shadow diagrams indicate an increase in overshadowing to the southern adjoining property at No. 15A during the winter months. However, this is due to the construction of the two-storey dwelling as against the present single storey structures that exist on site. It is considered that the loss of solar access is reasonable in the circumstances as No. 15A is immediately to the south of the proposal and will receive a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight to their rear yard area during winter.
The DBU inspected the site and raise no objection in principle to the proposal. The building design together with the recommendations of the responsible officer and Council’s Heritage Architect will resolved the majority of concerns raised by residents.
However, the DBU is concerned with the proposed basement carpark, which requires a large amount of excavation of the site to accommodate 2 car spaces and laundry. At present the subject site has a driveway access and carport located on the southern side of the site. The DBU is of the opinion that the basement car park should be deleted and that the applicant considers utilising the present driveway access for a carspace. It should be noted that the deletion of the basement area will technically reduce the floor space ratio. The deletion of the basement will form part of the recommendation to Council for deferral.
The application has been assessed against relevant provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979; Council Codes and Policies and taking into account submissions received.
It is considered that the application is generally acceptable, subject to the following modifications as recommended below.