accommodation comprising 76 bedsit units) … · inadequate office/concierge space, no allocated...

Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 August 2008 Page 29

Wollongong City Council

ITE

M 2

REF: CM130/08

292-296 GIPPS ROAD KEIRAVILLE - BOARDING HOUSE (STUDENT ACCOMMODATION COMPRISING 76 BEDSIT UNITS) WITH COMMERCIAL AT GROUND FLOOR (THREE TENANCIES) Report of Manager City Planning (AC) 14/08/08 DA-2007/501

PRECIS

Consent was granted in June 2005 for 24 units and three commercial tenancies on the subject site and these works have commenced. A development application for a boarding house with commercial tenancies at ground floor was subsequently lodged with Council on 26 April 2007. The application was refused and the applicant has since applied to Council for a review of that determination. The review of determination has been undertaken by an independent planning consultant. This assessment has concluded that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, it fails to have regard to the zone objectives, there is an unacceptable streetscape presentation, the level of facilities proposed are inadequate for the residents of the boarding house, inadequate information has been provided to justify the traffic generation, and inadequate information on the management of the facility has been provided. For these reasons, the application should be refused and the original determination upheld.

RECOMMENDATION

The application be refused for the following reasons: 1 The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site in relation to the excessive FSR

proposed and the SEPP 1 objection submitted is not well founded, not justifying compliance with the assumed objectives of Clause 12 of WLEP 1990.

2 The proposal has an excessive density of occupation of the site having regard to the zoning of

the site, the zone objectives and the surrounding low and medium density residential zonings. 3 The proposal has an unacceptable streetscape presentation to the Keiraville Shopping Village

and in particular to Gipps Street as it:

a Fails to provide an appropriate corner emphasis to the design of the building; b Provides an unacceptable four storey presentation to Gipps Street in proximity to the

boundary with the Residential 2(b) zone, which allows only a two storey form of development;

c The proposal should provide for an increased setback from Gipps Street in proximity to

the change in zoning at the western boundary of the site: and d The proposal provides an excessive setback to the retail/commercial suites and does not

provide a street awning design to those units, which is uncharacteristic in the Village and makes the uses inappropriately recessive in the streetscape.

4 An inadequate level of facilities are proposed for the residents of the building and for the

management/staff of the facility, with inadequate accommodation for the manager, inadequate office/concierge space, no allocated staff parking and inadequate communal living areas.

5 Inadequate information has been provided to justify the traffic generation specified in the

traffic report, with the generation being based on a survey conducted at an inappropriate time when the facility being surveyed was well below full occupancy.

Ordinary Meeting of Council Page 30 26 August 2008


ITE

M 2

6 Inadequate information has been provided in relation to the management, staffing, services

and facilities to be provided on the site to ascertain whether an adequate level of amenity will be afforded to future and surrounding residents.

7 The proposal makes inappropriate provision for onsite servicing/loading, with the service bay

located too far from the entrance and lift making it inconvenient for use by regular users such as couriers.

BACKGROUND

The Environment and Planning Committee resolved to approve DA-2004/1220 for 24 units and three commercial premises on the subject site at its meeting of 6 June 2005. Works have commenced on site in regard to this application. DA-2007/501 for a boarding house on the site was lodged with Council on 26 April 2007. At its meeting of 4 February 2008, the Environment and Planning Committee resolved to refuse the application. (A copy of the resolution is provided at Attachment 5). The following was also resolved at this meeting:

The State Government urgently introduce legislation for boarding houses/hostels, including accreditation and a regulatory framework.

Council wrote to the Minister for Planning advising of the above resolution. It was also highlighted that certain State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), in particular SEPP (BASIX) 2004 and SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, that would have ordinarily applied to such a residential building, do not apply to a boarding house as it does not comprise of self contained dwellings. On 6 May 2008 an application for a review of determination was lodged with Council. PROPOSAL

The proposal is for a boarding house providing student accommodation comprising of 76 bedsit units with commercial/retail tenancies at the ground floor and basement car parking. Each bedsit unit has a floor area of approximately 18.5m2 and contains a bathroom, bed, desk, bench with one module sink, cupboards containing a kettle and cutlery for coffee and tea making, a microwave, a broom cupboard and a wardrobe. All meals are proposed to be prepared in the kitchen and served in the communal dining area on Level 1. An on-site manager will oversee the operations of the buildings and will reside in one of the bedsit units. The applicant anticipates that this manager will direct student activities and will be responsible for the monitoring of building maintenance.

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION

The original application was placed on exhibition in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and a total of 145 submissions and one petition containing 525 signatures were received. A Formal Facilitation meeting was held on 14 November 2007. The application for a review of the determination was placed on exhibition. There was in the order of 164 submissions received, the majority of these submissions did not support the proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 August 2008 1


ITE

M 2

The University of Wollongong was requested to provide its position on the proposal. Council was advised that the University was not involved in the planning or the design of the proposal. The University noted there are no living areas for residents which would usually be provided in a modern university student accommodation facility.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT

The subject site is zoned 3(b) Neighbourhood Business under the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 1990. The full assessment report is provided in Attachment 4. A summary of this assessment is provided below - Setbacks The northern, western and eastern setbacks are considered appropriate. However, the southern setback to Gipps Road is considered inappropriate. The southern setbacks provided and the lack of a traditional awning approach make the retail/commercial uses subservient to the boarding house use of the site and fail to appropriately address what is a significant retail/commercial corner within the village. A strong corner element should be provided. There is also a lack of stepping in the southern façade which does not respond to the adjoining residential building to the west. Height A suitable form of development on the site would provide the maximum height of three storeys at the south-eastern corner of the site and step down the height towards the northern and western boundaries. The proposal actually steps up the height at the western boundary which provides an inappropriate transition at the western boundary with the lower density residential zone as well as an inappropriate relationship in the streetscape and an inappropriate visual bulk relationship when viewed from the adjoining residential property. Floor Space Ratio WLEP 1990 stipulates a maximum FSR of 0.75:1 on the site. The FSR proposed is actually 1.06:1 as opposed to the applicant’s calculation of 1.013:1. The primary justification for the non-compliance is that there is an existing approval on the site for a building with an FSR of 1.03:1 and the breach is required to meet the “optimal economic potential” of the site. This SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and fails the Winton test. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Density Development Control Plan (DCP) 49 – Residential Development requires residential to commercial floor space ratio of 30% residential to 70% commercial on the site. The residential component of the proposal equates to approximately 90% of the floor space. This is excessive and contrary to the objective of the zone which is to provide services and facilities for the local community. The density proposed equates to 299 persons per hectare which is considered excessive in the context of the surrounding low and medium density residential zonings. Traffic While the parking provision is considered adequate, inadequate information has been provided to assess the traffic impact of the proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council Page 32 26 August 2008


ITE

M 2

Heritage The proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on any heritage significance that the Keiraville Primary School may have. Suitability of the Site The provision of such targeted accommodation is acceptable in such a location given the proximity to the University and the local shops. However, this would be subject to the design and density of any such development being appropriate. Operation of the Facility Inadequate information has been provided as to how the facility will be run and managed. A management office/concierge at the entrance and operating 24 hours a day should be incorporated in the design to provide security, a mail collection point, ensure running of the accommodation component, and to provide a point of contact. A live in manager is also necessary and they should have their own private facilities such as a kitchen, living area, laundry and private open space area. The facilities provided for residents are unclear and inadequate. No provision has been made for communal living space or internal recreation opportunities. A draft management plan should have been submitted with the application.

CONCLUSION

The review of the determination undertaken by Kerry Gordon Planning Services concludes refusal of the application. The proposal is contrary to the zone objectives and FSR requirements under WLEP 1990 and the density requirements under DCP 49. In this regard, the proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the site and it is recommended that the refusal determination be upheld.

Name Position Title Date Signature This report provides Administrators with all the relevant information and is correct at the time of writing.

This information has been relied upon in preparing the report and its recommendations. Signed by:

Andrew Carfield Manager City Planning 14/8/08

Peter Kofod Executive Manager Governance and Planning

14/8/08

David Farmer General Manager 18/8/08

ATTACHMENTS

1. Aerial Photograph 2. WLEP Zoning Map 3. Plans 4. Review of Determination Assessment Report 5. Resolution from the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting of 4 February 2008.

ATTACHMENT 1 - Aerial Photograph Page 33


ATTACHMENT 2 - WLEP Zoning Map


AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Page 35

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Page 37

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Page 39

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Page 41

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3 - Plans

Wo

llongo

ng City C

ouncil

ATTACHMENT 4 - Review of Determination Assessment Report Page 43


ATTACHMENT 4 - Review of Determination Assessment Report


ATTACHMENT 5 - Resolution from the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting of 4 February 2008. Page 53


ATTACHMENT 5 - Resolution from the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting of 4 February 2008.


accommodation comprising 76 bedsit units) … · inadequate office/concierge space, no allocated...

Documents