Ordinary Meeting of Council Page 105 - Wollongong · Ordinary Meeting of Council ... The plans should detail all necessary fittings and services ancillary to the ... Ms E Treglown

Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 October 2009 Page 105

Wollongong City Council

ITE

M 1

5

REF: CM195/09

CHANGE OF USE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, 264-270 LAWRENCE HARGRAVE DRIVE, THIRROUL - IHAP REPORT Report of Manager City Planning (DW) 29/09/09 DA-2008/314

PRECIS

Development consent DA-2006/154/B was issued in 2007 for the use of the building for retail and commercial purposes. Approval was granted for the ground floor use as retail and three levels for commercial purposes (professional suites). The current development application now proposes a change of approved use from commercial to residential on the top two floors. The proposal was referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) on 29 January 2009 for their consideration. The Panel recommended deferral of this application until additional information was supplied to the satisfaction of the Manager City Planning. The information has been provided and assessed as satisfactory and the application may now be determined.

RECOMMENDATION

Council grant development consent to DA-2008/314 subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND

The existing building on the site is the former King’s Theatre, now known as Anita’s Theatre. The theatre is recorded in Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 as a built heritage item of Local Significance. Development on the site has been subject to numerous development applications and their associated modifications. Development consent DA-2006/154/B was issued in 2007 for the use of the building for retail and commercial purposes whereby approval was granted for the ground floor use as retail and the three upper levels for commercial purposes (professional suites).

PROPOSAL

DA-2008/314 proposes to change the approved use of the building from commercial to residential use on levels 2 and 3.

ASSESSMENT

The IHAP was generally supportive of the change of use but found that the application was incomplete in some details and that there were inaccuracies in the plans lodged in support of the application. The applicant has submitted amended plans and the additional information required. Comment is provided below in relation to the IHAP’s requirements. IHAP: The IHAP believed that there should not be an approval of this application until accurate plans are provided. Comment: The plans submitted are now considered to be accurate. IHAP: The plans should detail all necessary fittings and services ancillary to the residential use such as letterboxes, garbage facilities, visitor car park, marked residential spaces as allocated on the strata plan, the strata plan. Comment: Details pertaining to the letter box location, garbage facilities (bay) and car parking have been provided on plan. The detail has been assessed and is considered to be satisfactory. The applicant has advised in writing that changes have to be made to the strata plan to reflect the change of use and car parking. It is recommended that an updated strata plan be requested to reflect

Ordinary Meeting of Council Page 106 27 October 2009


ITE

M 1

5 the changes shown on the submitted plans, and this should be provided prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate (Condition 33 of Attachment 3). IHAP: Possible noise arising from the loading dock to the northern balconies of the residential units was of concern. Comment: An acoustic report was submitted and referred to Council’s Environment Division who found the report to be satisfactory. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended in this regard (Condition 23 and 32 of Attachment 3. IHAP: The applicant was requested to demonstrate how security to the second level balcony will be ensured from the roof of theatre. Comment: A glass panel is proposed to be placed at the eastern end of the balcony, restricting access to this area. Furthermore, security to the units will be achieved by a security door which will restrict general access. Security is considered to have been satisfactorily addressed. IHAP: The balustrade should comply with the Building Code of Australia. Comment: The existing metal framework is proposed to be lined with the appropriate glass, and will satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. IHAP: The applicant should detail how air conditioning units (for either residential or commercial) will be provided in the building. Comment: Air conditioning units for the residential units have been indicated on plan. Unit 13 has limited locations where the compressor unit will not be seen, and it is considered that the proposed location is acceptable. The location of the air conditioning unit for Unit 14 could be moved to less visually obtrusive location outside the kitchen, where it will not be seen from the street and not impact on a bedroom. It is recommended that a condition be applied to the development consent requiring the change in location to be indicated on plan prior to the issue of a construction certificate (Condition 6 of Attachment 3). IHAP: The existing air conditioning units attached to the eastern wall to the commercial building are entirely unsatisfactory and should be removed. Comment: The abovementioned air conditioning units have been moved to the stair well outside Unit 12. It is considered that the relocation meets the intent of IHAP’s above requirement. IHAP: Details to be provided in relation to the manner in which landscaping will be provided to soften the impact of the northern elevation. Comment: The scope for landscaping to soften the northern elevation is limited. The applicant states that the landscaping indicated on plans DA001 and DA002 will be implemented. This has been assessed and is considered to be satisfactory (Condition 34 at Attachment 3). IHAP: The bulk of the western wall is unsatisfactory and needs to be treated in a manner that will provide visual relief. Comment: The applicant states the wall will be rendered and painted with contrasting banding at each floor level. It is considered that the banding will provide the visual relief called for above (Condition 9 of Attachment 3). IHAP: The IHAP noted that the height is marginally higher than the ridge of the theatre however, the excess is not of consequence in heritage impact terms. Comment: Exceeding the 11m IREP height limit received concurrence from DoP on 18 May 2009.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 October 2009 Page 107


ITE

M 1

5

CONCLUSION

The requirements of the IHAP Panel are considered to have been met via amended plans and additional information and the application may now be supported.

Name Position Title Author:

David Whitfield Senior Development Project Officer

Authorised by:

Mark Riordan Manager City Planning

Andrew Carfield Director Planning & Environment

David Farmer General Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Recommendations of the IHAP 29 January 20092. Officer's report to the IHAP 29 January 2009 3. Draft Conditions 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Zoning Map 6. Plans

Page 108 ATTACHMENT 1 - Recommendations of the IHAP 29 January 2009


IHAP No. Item 3

DA No. DA-2008/314

Proposal Change of use from commercial to residential

Property Lot 100 DP 1104635 264-270 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, THIRROUL NSW 2515

Owner Lyncove Pty Ltd

Applicant Lyncove Pty Ltd

Panel Mary-Lynne Taylor (Chairperson), James Colman and Helena Miller (Independent) and Michael McKeogh (Community Representative)

Staff in Attendance

Andrew Carfield (Director Planning and Environment), Pier Panozzo (Acting Manager City Planning), Lauren Wilson (IHAP Coordinator)

Plans

Pecuniary Interest None of the Panel members had any pecuniary interests relating to this matter.

Panel Commentary: Ms E Treglown (applicant) and Mr J Comelli (owner) attended the meeting and addressed the Panel. This is an application to change the use of two existing, partly built, commercial units in the commercial facility at the rear of Anitas Theatre at 264-270 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul. Council had approved in this building, shops and commercial uses and the applicant wishes to change the two upper floors to two residential units. The Panel is generally supportive of the change of use but finds that the application is incomplete in some details and that there are inaccuracies in the plans lodged in support of the application. [It is acknowledged by the applicant that the building as built is not reflected in the plans lodged with this application at Council and he wishes to retain the unapproved height and floor space as built]. The Panel does not believe there should be an approval of this application until accurate plans are provided. These plans should detail all the necessary fittings and services ancillary to residential use such as letter boxes, garbage facilities, visitor car park, marked residential parking spaces as allocated in the strata plan, the strata plan, and the following further information is required. The Panel is concerned to know how the impact of the noise of the loading dock at the rear will impact on the northern balconies of the two upper residential units; how the security of the second level unit balcony will be ensured; how the balustrade on each balcony will comply with the provisions of the BCA; how air conditioning units (for either residential or commercial use) will be provided within the building [the existing air conditioning units attached to the eastern wall of the commercial building are entirely unsatisfactory and should be removed]; and the manner in which landscaping will be provided to soften the impact of the northern elevation.

ATTACHMENT 1 - Recommendations of the IHAP 29 January 2009 Page 109


In addition the Panel finds the bulk of the western wall to be unsatisfactory and requires it to be treated in a manner that will provide visual relief. The Panel finds that the spaces provided for the residential units are satisfactory and with appropriate conditions the amenity of incoming residents can be assured. The Panel notes that there were no objections to this application from either commercial or residential neighbours. Although the height as built is marginally higher than the ridge of the historical theatre adjoining, the excess is imperceptible and of no great consequence in heritage impact terms; and the Panel believes that the SEPP1 objection lodged to justify the breach of the floor space standard is well founded.

Recommendations The Panel recommends deferral of this application until the plans and additional information are supplied to the satisfaction of the Manager City Planning and does not require the matter to be referred back to the Panel.

Voting The voting in respect of this matter was 4/0.

Page 110 ATTACHMENT 2 - Officer's report to the IHAP 29 January 2009


IHAP No. Item No. 3

DA No. DA-2008/314

Proposal Change of use from commercial to residential

Property No. 264-270 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul – Lot 100 DP 1104635

Applicant Lyncove Pty Limited

Responsible Team

City Wide Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reason for Consideration by IHAP

The application is required to be reported to the IHAP pursuant to section 1.4 of the IHAP Charter as the application involves a variation to Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 1990.

Proposal The proposal is a change of use to levels 3 and 4 from commercial to residential.

Background The existing building on the site is the former King’s Theatre now called Anita’sTheatre and recorded in WLEP 1990 as a built heritage item of Local Significance. Development on the site has been subject to numerous development applications with modifications. In development consent DA-2006/154/B a building was approved for retail use on the ground floor and 3 levels for commercial purposes (professional suites) above. The development is constructed to the final roof level granted in development consent DA-2007/154/B. As the height of this building was above the 11m maximum under Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan (IREP), concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning (DoP) was required and granted. However the final roof level is about 0.310m above that approved. No further works have occurred to date besides the construction of balconies.

DoP has requested a formal referral to review the variation to the building height.

Permissibility The subject site is zoned 3(a), General Business zone and residential flats are permissible with consent.

Consultation Notification for the review of determination was undertaken as per Council’s Notification Policy and no submissions were received.

Main Issues

Departure from Development Standard – Clause 12 of WLEP 1990 Clause 12 - Floor Space Ratio (FSR) The FSR for the site is 1.5:1 and the variation sought is 1.54:1.

Environmental Impact It is considered that the variation will have a minimal impact on the bulk and scale of the building. However any impacts are likely to be apparent on level 4, where side walls are proposed to be extended in the residential conversion. The increase in bulk is not likely to contribute to view loss from the public domain given the roof form of the existing building.

ATTACHMENT 2 - Officer's report to the IHAP 29 January 2009 Page 111


A SEPP 1 was requested and submitted (Attachment 5).

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that DA-2008/314 be approved subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 6.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1 Background The existing building on the site is the former King’s Theatre now called Anita’s theatre and recorded in WLEP 1990 as a built heritage item of Local Significance. Development on the site has been subject to numerous development applications with modifications. In development consent DA-2006/154/B a building was approved for retail use on the ground floor and 3 levels for commercial purposes (professional suites) above.

The development is constructed to the final roof level granted in development consent DA-2007/154/B. As the height of this building was above the 11m maximum under Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan (IREP), concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning (DoP) was required and granted. However the final roof level is about 0.310m above that approved. No further works have occurred to date besides the construction of balconies.

DoP has requested a formal referral to review the variation to the building height. Development History Development Application DA-2003/1670 Demolition of two existing outbuildings and use of existing building for police station, 8 commercial shops and 7 x 3 bedroom apartments with on-site parking for 39 cars over 2 levels – withdrawn. Development Application DA-2003/5243 Change of use of a shop into a hair dressing salon and a book/coffee shop – approved. Development Application DA-2004/158 Alterations and additions to the ‘King’s Theatre’ building, including the construction of seven (7) shops at ground level within the building; terrace parking for six spaces; construction of a police station and secured police compound for parking; and construction of five townhouses over basement parking to service commercial shops and podium parking for townhouses. Development Application DA-2004/158/A ‘Modification to Conditions 2 & 7’ Condition 2 - Staging of Consent — Stage One was amended to create Stage One A & Stage One B as follows: Stage One A - Construction of Shops 3, 4, 5 and parking. Stage One B- Construction of the remaining ground floor commercial units and associated access and basement car parking area at No: 1-3 Redman Ave. Stage Two — Construction of Police Station and associated parking on Lot 1 DP 311505 and Lot 2 DP 314334. Stage Three —Townhouse development and associated access and podium level parking. Stage Four — Completion of Restoration of the Kings Theatre Building (excluding Auditorium see Condition 5). Development Application DA-2004/158/B Modification to condition relating to extension of footpath paving. Development Application DA-2004/158/ C Modification to Condition 16 of development consent and inclusion of shop 10 within ground floor of theatre.



Development Application DA-2004/158/D Modification of condition 3.2 to allow the occupation of ground level shops without the construction of a temporary carpark. Development Application DA-2006/154 Conversion of proposed police station to commercial use, conversion of proposed townhouses to professional suites and minor additions to existing theatre building. Development Application DA-2006/154/A Modification of floor to ceiling heights of upper 3 floors of theatre addition’. Development Application DA-2006/154/B Modification to internal walls to fire stair. Development Application DA-2006/1061 Internal fit out and building uses including: theatre performances, art displays, community meetings, youth functions, weddings, church services and other similar uses. Development Application DA-2007/1645 Use of an existing shop as a chemist.

2 Site Location and Description The site is located in King Street, Thirroul in the northern part of the Thirroul business district. The proposal is in the commercial extension that joins Kings (Anita’s) theatre. (Attachment 1).

3 Proposal The proposal is a change of use to levels 3 and 4 from commercial to residential.

4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 In determining a development application, the consent authority must take into consideration matters referred to in section 79C (1) of the EP&A Act 1979 as are of relevance to the development. The following table summarises the relevant matters of consideration under section 79C (1) and the significant matters are discussed in further detail further in the report.

Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(a)(i) any environmental planning instrument The applicable EPI’s are as follows: State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (see section 5 of the report) State Environmental Planning Policy 71 (see section 5 of the report) State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 (see section 5 of the report) Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan – 1986 (see section 6 of the report) Wollongong Local environmental Plan 1990 (see section 7 of the report) (a)(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details

of which have been notified to the consent authority Wollongong Draft LEP 2009

The site is zoned B2 - Local Centre, residential flats are permissible with development consent.




(a)(iii) any development control plan The applicable DCP’s are as follows:

DCP 49 - Mixed use development (see section 8 of the report) Thirroul Village Centre Development Control Plan. No. 55 (see section 8 of the report). (a)(iv) 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 None applicable

(a)(v) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph) The proposal does not involve demolition. The site within the coastal zone and the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the SEPP.

(b) the likely impacts of development

Context and Setting: The proposal relates to a substantially completed building and will not result in any significant change to the relationship of the building to the surrounding locality. As a consequence it is considered that the variation will have a minimal impact on the bulk and scale of the building. However, any impacts are likely to be apparent on level 4, where side walls of the residential portion are proposed to be extended by 1.470m towards the front facade. The increase in bulk is not likely to contribute to view loss from the public domain given the roof form of the existing building.

Access, Transport and Traffic: The car parking for the commercial use has already been constructed under previous approvals and these spaces are proposed to be utilised for the residential requirements. The access to the basement car park also remains unchanged. The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal.

Public Domain: The development is considered suitable within the public domain. The development is considered Comparable with the planned future character of the area having consideration to height and scale. It is considered that the proposed height variation will not have significant visual and shadowing impacts due to the design and setbacks.

Utilities: The proposal is not envisaged to place an unreasonable demand on utilities supply. Existing utilities are adequate to service the development. A BASIX certificate has been provided for the proposal.

Heritage: Council’s Heritage Officer concurs with Heritage report submitted that the change of use is not anticipated to have additional impacts on the significance of the Kings Theatre Building.

Other land resources: The proposal is considered to contribute to orderly development of the site and is not envisaged to impact upon any valuable land resources.




Water: The site is presently serviced by Sydney Water, which can be readily extended to meet the requirements of the proposed development. The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable water impacts, either due to consumption or via pollution.

Soils: Excavation for footings occurred from the development consent DA-2006/154/B. No disturbance of soils in this proposal.

Air and Microclimate: The proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on air or microclimates. Construction impacts can be managed by way of conditions on any consent granted.

Flora and Fauna: There is no vegetation removal proposed.

Waste: The proposal will generate waste during the construction and operational phases. A condition will be attached to any consent granted that appropriate receptacle be in place for any waste generated during the construction and a waste area is to be provided in the basement for operational use.

Energy: The site is presently serviced by Integral Energy, which can be readily extended to meet the requirements of the proposed development. The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable energy consumption in operational use.

Noise and vibration: This may occur in construction phase and a condition will be attached to any consent granted to ameliorate this impact. The proposal is not envisaged to have any noise and vibration beyond the domestic use in the operational phase.

Natural hazards: There are no natural hazards affecting the site that would present an obstacle to the proposal.

Technological hazards: There are no technological hazards affecting the site that would prevent the proposal.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention: The residential use will provide a degree of visual surveillance. The commercial and residential uses will have the same entrance, however a security door has been provided on the amended plans that will inhibit access to the residential units. The application was referred to Council’s Safe Community Action Team (SCAT) officer who raised no issue with the proposal.

Social Impact: The use of the site is consistent with the overall context and setting and planned future character of the area. The proposal is not expected to create any negative social impacts.




Economic Impact: During the construction phase, the proposal is expected to contribute to the local construction industry. The proposal is not expected to create any negative economic impacts.

Site Design and Internal Design: The building incorporates design features and associated built form that will contribute in a positive manner to the surrounding environment and streetscape. The commercial units to be modified for residential use have living areas orientated to the north providing good solar access during the year and especially the winter months. It is considered that the proposed development is generally acceptable in relation to adjoining development and has provided for appropriate site and the internal design.

Construction: Some impacts are expected during construction, conditions of consent can be imposed to mitigate these Impacts. A condition will be attached to any consent granted that Work Cover be contacted for any demolition or use of any crane, hoist, plant or scaffolding.

Cumulative Impacts: It is not considered that there are any cumulative impacts as a result of this application given that the proposed change of use, while reducing the possible available commercial space will add residential use to this part of the commercial area similar to that opposite the subject premises in Lawrence Hargrave Drive.

c) the suitability of the site for development

The site is suitable for the proposal. There are no physical site hazards which would limit the proposed development. The scale of the development will stand out within the existing character of the area. However, the site already has development consent for the construction of ground level retail use and three levels of commercial use. Sufficient car parking, storage and waste area has been provided in the basement. Private open space areas (balconies) to the north connect the living areas and provide abundant solar access complying with DCP 49. The impact of the change of use is considered minimal. The height will have minimal impact on views from west of the development to the ocean. (Attachment 4). The proposal will add diversity to residential types in the vicinity of the Thirroul Town Centre.

d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy. Notification closed on the 4 April 2008 and no submissions were received.

e) The public interest The impacts of the development are not considered unreasonable in the context of the current planning controls. The changes to the building structure, including the variations are not considered to be significant no submissions have been received. Therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the public interest

5 State Environmental Policies State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 1 The site is subject to an FSR requirement of 1.5:1 under Wollongong LEP 1990. A SEPP 1 submission was submitted on the 16 May 2008 stating that the FSR is 1.54:1 which is a 2.6% increase in floor space (Attachment 5).



Wollongong LEP 1990 does not contain objectives relating to the FSR requirement. However DCP 49 states the objective of density controls is to “ensure that the bulk and scale of the building is compatible with surrounding built forms”.

The suitability of the density of the substantially completed building on the site in the context of surrounding built forms was considered in Council’s assessment of DA-2006/154 and subsequent modifications and was found to be acceptable.

The additional floor area as a result of the proposal is not considered to not have significantly different impacts in terms of visual bulk. In terms of amenity impacts, the proposed additional floor space will not result in any additional shadow being cast on adjoining properties or any adverse privacy impacts. The proposal is not considered to change the spatial and built form relationship between the subject and surrounding buildings.

In the context of the current assessment, given the circumstances that have led to the variation and having regard to the assessment of the amenity impacts on the adjoining properties, the proposal does not create additional adverse impacts through the proposed changes. Modification to the building to achieve strict compliance with the LEP requirement or refusal of the proposal is not considered to be warranted or necessary to achieve the objectives of the control.

Accordingly, the strict application of the FSR requirement is considered unnecessary in the circumstances to achieve the objectives of the requirement and objects of the Act. The applicant’s SEPP No. 1

Objection is considered to be well founded and it is recommended that the power of SEPP No. 1 be Invoked. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 71 SEPP 71 applies to the development as the land is located within the Coastal Zone, as defined in the Coastal Protection Act 1979. The land is not ‘sensitive coastal location’ and the development does not constitute ‘significant coastal development’. Clause 7 requires Council to consider the provisions of Clause 8 before determining the proposal.

The proposed development has been considered against Clause 8 and Part 4 of SEPP 71 and is considered to be consistent with the SEPP and its aims. The proposed development does not restrict public access to or have any significant adverse impact on the coastal foreshore. State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 A BASIX certificate has been provided for the proposal. 6 Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No.1 - 1986

The height of this building was above the 11m maximum under IREP, concurrence from the Director General of the DoP was required and granted. However the final roof level is about 0.310m above that approved. DoP has requested a formal referral to review the variation to the building height. 7 Wollongong Local environmental Plan 1990 The site is zoned 3(a) General Business zone and residential flats are permissible with development consent.

Clause 12 - Floor Space Ratio The site is subject to an FSR requirement of 1.5:1 under Wollongong LEP 1990. A SEPP 1 submission was submitted on the 16 May 2008 stating that the FSR is 1.54:1 which is a 2.6% increase in floor space (Attachment 5). See SEPP1 section above for detailed comment. Clause 29C Council’s Heritage Officer concurs with Heritage report submitted that the change of use is not anticipated to have additional impacts on the significance of the Kings Theatre Building.



8 Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan No. 49 – Residential Development 14.1 Site width. The proposal does not seek to vary this control as it relates to a substantially completed building. 14.2 FSR The site is subject to an FSR requirement of 1.5:1 under Wollongong LEP 1990. A SEPP 1 submission was submitted on the 16 May 2008 stating that the FSR is 1.54:1 which is a 2.6% increase in floor space (Attachment 5). See SEPP1 section above for detailed comment. 14.3 Height. The proposal exceeds the required ceiling height of 11m by 0.310m and complies with the permissible ridge height of 13m. The development is considered comparable with the planned future character of the area having consideration to height and scale. It is considered that the proposed height variation will not have significant visual and shadowing impacts due to the design and setbacks. For these reasons it is considered that the objectives of the clause have been met and the variation in height is considered to be acceptable. 14.4 Front setback. It is not proposed to alter the setback of the existing front façade which has a zero setback. The proposal does not meet the required setback of 6m at level 4 and is setback at 5.5m. This is considered acceptable having consideration to the zero setback of the front facade. All other setbacks comply with the DCP. It is considered that the objectives of the clause have been met and the variation is considered to be acceptable. 14.5 Side and rear setbacks. The balconies on the northern side are 30m from adjoining residential development and the southern balcony on level 5 faces a road. It is considered that the objectives of the clause have been met and the variation is considered to be acceptable 14.6 Basements. The proposal does not alter the existing basement car parking already built under previous approvals. 14.7 Built form. The proposal does not alter the existing approved front façade. The proposed balconies on the northern façade would provide additional balcony area to the living spaces. The entrance directly addresses the street. Commercial and residential uses utilise combined access and a security door was added to restrict access to the residential units. 14.9 Driveways. The proposal does not alter the existing driveways already built under previous approvals. 14.10 Car parking. Five car parking spaces are required and four have been provided within the existing commercial allocation. This includes one visitor space and two spaces for the level three units and one space for the level four units. An additional car parking space is required and can be physically provided on the site. This should be conditioned on any consent granted to comply with the DCP. 14.11 Landscaping. No additional landscaping has been provided. Landscaping for screening is not required as overlooking is not considered to be an issue given that the nearest residential neighbour is 30m away and commercial levels are below the residential units. It is feasible to provide minor landscaping on the balconies and this can be conditioned on any consent granted.



14.12 Communal Open space. This is not applicable to the proposal. 14.13 Private Open Space. Private open space has been provided by balconies on the northern façade which have direct access to the main living rooms. This complies with the DCP. 14.14 Overshadowing. Overshadowing is considered adequate given that the proposal is for a building which is substantially constructed. 14.15 Adaptable Housing. This is not applicable to the proposal. 14.16 Apartment Mix. This is not applicable to the proposal. 14.17 Solar Access. Solar access is considered adequate given that living rooms access balconies and have a northern aspect. 14.18 Natural Ventilation. Natural ventilation is considered to be acceptable having consideration to the depth of the units. 14.19 Adaptive reuse. Adaptive re-use of the building is possible. 14.20 Safety and Security. The residential use will provide a degree of visual surveillance. The commercial and residential uses will have the same entrance, however a security door has been provided on the amended plans that will inhibit access to the residential units. 14.21 Storage. Storage has been indicated on amended plans and complies with the DCP. 14.22 Waste Management. Waste storage and collection has been proposed within the development. A condition that the garbage bins are not to be stored outside the garbage bay indicated on the plan is proposed. 14.23 Site Facilities. Applicable site facilities such as letterboxes, communication facilities, bicycle rack/lockup facility, and clothes drying are proposed to be enforced via conditions of consent. 14.24 Fire Brigade Servicing. This has been provided via the previous approvals. DCP 55 – Thirroul Village Centre

Height and setback The height limits imposed by this DCP (3 storeys) and setback requirements on the 3rd level (6m), are not considered to be relevant given that the proposal does not alter the number of floor levels. The façade treatment remains the same and the impact of a balcony on the 3rd and 4th level is discussed below. The change of use. The northern area of the village is to retain core retail uses and the retail use on the ground floor is not changed by this proposal. The proposal is consistent with the mixed use provision of the control.



Other matters Noise from theatre and adjacent hotel may impact on the residential units. However, noise from the hotel could be ameliorated through the use of double glazing on the windows facing the hotel.

Impact of the residential design changes; include the northern balcony on level 3 and on 4, which bring the side wall forward on level 4 by 1.47m.

The balconies to the north increase the outdoor area from the living room and the northern orientation allows effective solar access. The distance to the nearest residential dwellings is 30m and impact on privacy is considered to be minimal. The impact of the increasing the side walls and height have been discussed above in Public Domain.

9 Consultation

9.1 Notification Policy

The application was placed on notification in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy. No submissions were received.

9.2 Referral to Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) The application has been assessed against Council’s IHAP Charter selection criteria and does trigger referral to IHAP as it involves variation to LEP development standards.

9.3 Internal consultation Building Council’s Building Surveyor raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions at Attachment 6.

SCAT Council’s SCAT Officer raised no objection to the proposal with no specific conditions. Heritage Council’s Heritage Officer concurs with Heritage report submitted. The change of use is not anticipated to have additional impacts on the significance of the Kings Theatre Building. No specific conditions. Traffic Council’s Traffic Engineer raised no objection to the proposal with no specific conditions. Stormwater Council’s Stormwater Development Engineer raised no objection to the proposal with no specific conditions.

9.4 External consultation Department of Planning DoP was contacted via telephone to determine if concurrence was required for the increase in height from that D2006/154/B. DoP requested to a formal referral be done for the increase in height.

10 Conclusion The proposal has been assessed in relation to all relevant matters for consideration prescribed by s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and permissible with the consent of Council. Whilst the proposed development requires variation to the IREP, LEP and the DCP, these areas of non-compliance have been considered in detail and do not warrant refusal of the application.

The variation to the building height is required to be formally referred to DoP and concurrence received prior to final determination of the application.

Page 120 ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions


ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions Page 121










Page 126 ATTACHMENT 4 - Aerial Photograph


ATTACHMENT 5 - Zoning Map Page 127


Page 128 ATTACHMENT 6 - Plans


ATTACHMENT 6 - Plans Page 129












Documents

Ordinary Meeting of Council Page 105 - Wollongong · Ordinary Meeting of Council ... The plans should detail all necessary fittings and services ancillary to the ... Ms E Treglown