P9061 - Assessment 2 Part 2 Development Assessment DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT Application No.
DA/2021/0166
Address
25 Salisbury Road Stanmore NSW 2048
Proposal
Alterations and Additions Partial demolition of existing main single dwelling and garage to allow for construction of an additional storey for both structures and alterations.
Date of Lodgement
24/03/2021
Applicant
AC Design Group
Owner
Ming Yang
Number of Submissions
None
Cost of Works
$99,550
Zoning
R2 - Low Density Residential - MLEP 2011
Heritage
Yes - HCA 6 (Annandale Farm Conservation Area)
Main Issues
Heritage Conservation Area Treatment Materiality Garage Form (Roof, Dormer Windows) Overlooking and Privacy Landscaping
Recommendation
Approval
1. Summary of proposal including recommendation (Do at End) The proposal is for 25 Salisbury Road Stanmore and involves partial demolition, alterations and additions to the main dwelling structure and garage. The additions include a first floor for the dwelling and a studio/loft space atop the garage. Situated in a Heritage Conservation Area, it has been assessed heavily by considering its impact on the character of the streetscape and its heritage precinct. This report concludes and explains that the application is satisfactory to the controls and standards of the MLEP 2011 and Marrickville DCP 2011 and is recommended for approval on the basis that the additions are adequately subtle to not detract from the structures’ respective street or lane frontage. Conditions have been provided to further ensure this development is suitable and sympathetic to the heritage significance of its site and neighbouring properties. 2. Site Description and locality The site for the proposed development is 25 Salisbury Road Stanmore and is legally identified as Lot: A DP: 310734. It is bounded by Salisbury Road and Stanmore Lane. The site is rectangular with the main frontage of 6.125 m orientated towards the north west facing Salisbury Rd, a rear boundary of 6.04 m on the south east facing Stanmore lane, and side boundaries of 37.21 m on the north east and 37.215 south west. The area of the lot is identified to be 221.3 m2 as per DP 310734 and 226.5.2m2 by manual calculation. The Salisbury Road site has a gentle slope that descends in the north easterly direction. 25 Salisbury Rd is currently occupied by a single brick dwelling that is of the Victorian Italianate style and a garage in the rear. Vehicular access is located at the rear of the site along Stanmore Lane via a driveway that leads immediately to the existing garage structure. The subject property and surrounding properties are from the Late Victorian Period as indicated by their architectural decorative elements. The streetscape of Salisbury Rd consists of brick and rendered brick facades with predominantly single storey housing and some two storey development further up Salisbury Road towards Percival Road. There is a prominent roof line with the form of hip roofs and roof materiality characterising the housing of Salisbury Rd. The subject site and its surrounding area is located within one of Marrickville’s heritage Conservation Areas (HCA 6) - Annandale Farm. Part of Stanmore North (Precinct 3), this precinct is made up primarily of lower density residential development which is evident on the proposed site. The area is characterised by its Victorian and Federation period housing that is bounded by wide streets and street alignment (use of roads as main access and lanes as secondary access historically purposed for service). 3. Background 3(a) Site History According to Innerwest’s Application Tracking Site, no prior history and was always a single detached dwelling of low density residential nature. 3(b) Application History According to Innerwest’s Application Tracking Site, no prior application history other than the current development proposal being assessed. 1
4. Proposal in Detail The development application received is for the partial demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and garage for the construction of first floor additions to both the main and ancillary structures. More specifically, the proposal includes; Ground floor level Main Dwelling ● Demolition of the back 3 quarters of the roof of dwelling structure ● Demolition of internal wall and window bounding existing kitchen ● Demolition of the metal roofing of existing back extension ● New metal roofing for back extension ● Interior alterations to accommodate new staircase in proposed kitchen and living area ● Interior alterations to existing/retained bathroom Garage ● Demolition of existing roof of garage ● Removal of rear garage wall and garage door First floor level Main Dwelling ● Addition of first floor atop the back 3 quarters of existing dwelling structure ● First floor proposes to contain a bedroom, master bedroom, study and two ensuite bathrooms ● South West Face partially offset from the boundary line to accommodate for a window with a fire shutter for the bedroom ensuite as per BCA regulation ● Timbre looking aluminium framed windows to be along the north east side and south east rear of the building - includes a high window and bay window ● Front portion of the proposed roof slants on a diagonal to disguise first floor addition, meeting the first floor wall and will be tile roofing to match the existing roof that is retained. The overall roofing of the first floor will take the same form as the existing dwelling which is the hip roof form. ● First floor external walls proposed to be rendered and paint finished with a grey colour. Garage ● Addition of first floor for studio space (loft and non-habitable space) and internal staircase ● Two sets of new windows to be included in the first floor addition, one facing the private space of the property and the other facing Stanmore Lane. ● The proposed garage and loft roof design is to be an asymmetrical gable form with the south east window (which has been deemed by this assessment as a contemporary dormer window) protruding from the main garage roof face. External works ●
There are no external works in the proposal. Landscape plan shows retention of the front lawn landscaping, planter boxes and paving.
2
5. Compliance with relevant statutory requirements 5(a) Marrickville local Environmental Plan 2011 The development site is subject to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones According to MLEP 2011, the site is located in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the proposal is a permissible form of development but requires Council’s consent. Proposal nature is for alterations and additions with an outcome of a dwelling and garage loft/studio addition which coincides with point 3 of Zone R2 Under Clause 2.1. The loft/studio isn’t explicitly specified in this section of the MLEP 2011 but falls under “Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4” therefore is permissible with consent. Part 4 – Principal development standards Applicable MLEP 2011 Clause
Development Standards
Development Proposal
Compliance/ Comment
4.3 Height of Buildings
9.5 m Labelled J
Main dwelling structure Highest ridge height - MD LG Level = 28.405 - 21.41 = 6.995 m
✔ YES
(Height of Buildings Map Sheet HOB_003)
Garage First Floor Addition (assessed against LEP as per Marrickville DCP 2011 Section 4.1.7.5 Control 31) Ridge height - Garage Level = 28.040 - 22.100 = 5.94 m 4.4 Floor Space Ratio
Maximum FSR Ratio 0.60:1 Labelled F (Floor Space Ratio Map Sheet_003) 4.4 (2A) Applies to “dwelling houses... labelled “F” on FSR Map”
Site Area ● 221.3m2 (as per the DP 310734) ● 226.5 m2 (by manual calculation) This will be used in FSR calculation GFA Calculation GFA = 104.9 + 14.6 + 42.2 = 161.70 m2
✔ YES 0.73 complies with the 4.4(2A) requirement of being under 0.9:1 FSR
(Excludes garage and stair areasas specified by definition of Gross Floor Area from MLEP Site is subject to 0.9:1 FSR 2011 Dictionary Section) ratio as it within the > 200 ≤ 250 square metres FSR Calculation FSR = 161.7 m2 ÷ 226.5 m2 = 0.73
3
Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation The proposal is within Heritage Conservation Area 6 (HCA 6) of Marrickville LGA known as Annandale Farm and is subject to the 5.10 standards of MLEP 2011. As per the MLEP 2011: ●
Requires Council’s consent as there is “demolishing... or altering the exterior... of a building within a heritage conservation area” Clause 5.10. 2a(iii)
●
A heritage management document should be prepared that assesses the impact the development has on the heritage conservation area. As discussed in section 6 of this report, the application should be referred to Council’s Heritage Officer for further advice on the development’s impact on the heritage conservation area. (For the purpose of this assignment, will still determine whether the development is approved or rejected as long as the development follows the conditions provided by Heritage Officer) It is deemed that the proposed works, as amended and conditioned (comments provided after 5(c) DCP Compliance Table), satisfactorily address the provisions of this Clause.
Part 6 – Additional local provisions 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils
The site is not categoried in any of the ASS classes. Therefore, it isn't subject to these provisions and an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is not required.
6.2 Earthworks
The proposal does not involve significant excavation or basement work and will not “have detrimental impact on environmental functions and process, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land” Part 6.2.1(a)
6.3 Flood Planning
The proposal is not located in a flood planning area. There the development is not subject to the Clause 6.3 standards as per 6.3.2
It is determined that the proposed development satisfies the aims, objectives and development standards, where relevant, of the Marrickville LEP 2011.
5(b) Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004 A BASIX Certificate has been submitted for the proposed development and the commitments required by the BASIX Certificate have been satisfied fulfilling the requirements as per Clause 3.1(a).
4
5(c) Marrickville Development Control Plans 2011 (DCP) The development proposal is subject to the provisions of the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2005. The table below summarises the applicable DCP controls and highlights key issues of the proposal providing in-depth comments for the proposal to satisfy the objectives and controls stated within the DCP. Key recommendations and solutions colour coded blue Part 2.6 Generic Provisions - Acoustic and Visual Privacy Relevant Control
Summary from Marrickville DCP 2011
Comply
Comments
2.6.3 C3 Visual Privacy
(iv) Windows must be offset
✔ YES
(iv) WF07 as shown in the notification plans looks to be stagger/offset from the adjacent second storey windows.Bay Window has an extruded frame minimising overlooking into 27 Salisbury private open space (v) WF09 (NE Garage Loft Window) Not specified to be a sill height of 1.6m. Design of WF08 (SE garage dormer window) should either meet minimum sill height of 1.6m or utilise opaque glazing to minimise overlooking to properties across Stanmore Lane.
(v) Minimum height and sill height of 1.6 from finished floor or opaque glazing
Part 2.7 Generic Provisions - Solar Access and overshadowing 2.18.11.1 C8 Maximise direct solar access
(i) Habitable room (not bedroom) receives 2hr of sunlight (ii) minimum two hours of direct sunlight over 50% of surface
✘ NO These existing issues are due to the orientation and the narrow lots
(i) Living spaces (ground kitchen and living room) do not have direct sunlight being placed toward the back of the house. (existing issue) Other ground floor windows do not get direct sunlight due to the same overshadowing issue from adjacent property 27 Salisbury Road. (ii) Meets 2hr over 50% finished surface requirement as shown in the shadow diagrams
Part 2.18 Generic Provisions - Landscaping and Open Spaces 2.18.11.1 C11
Pervious landscaping for front setback except paths and driveways
✔ YES
Proposal doesn’t involve changes to front setback landscaping
2.18.11.1 C12
Private open space (POS) (i) 20% of site area to be private open space with no dimension < 3m
✘ NO
(i) Required open space Calculation Current = 22.1 m2 Requirement = 226.5 x 0.2 = 45.3 m2 Currently does not fulfill requirements, though the proposal doesn’t involve landscaping, with Heritage Officer advice may require inclusion of landscaping as explained in 4.1.6 C8. (ii) The existing paving (non-pervious) and is being retained
(ii) Min. 50% of POS to be pervious
However, these issues are existing.
5
DCP Compliances (cont’d) Part 4.1.5 Streetscape Design Relevant Summary from Control Marrickville DCP 2011
Compliant Comments
C1
Address principal street frontage and orientated to complement the existing pattern
✘ NO
C2
✔ YES Facade enhances existing built character, interpreting any positive characteristics
Salisbury Rd has a very strong roof pitch and rhythm that dominates the streetscape especially among the immediate properties surrounding 25 Salisbury. The proposed roof design for the first storey may detract from this strong pattern shown in Fig 1. However, the retention of immediate frontage elements are retained to still reflect the Victorian Italianate Period style. Though the proposed roof viewed from the main frontage Salisbury Road is not consistent with the strong roofline, it is reminiscent of the rooflines of other properties located further down on Salisbury Road which is an “interpretation” and “translation” of the positive elements of the overall area, not just the immediate properties making it compliant and appropriate for the overall context area. Refer to Fig 2.
Part 4.1.6 Built Form and Character 4.1.6.1 Floor Space ratio and height C7
FSR, height consistent ✔ YES with MLEP 2011
Refer to Section 5(a) of this report
C8
Bulk and mass of is acceptable regarding
(i) ✘ (Refer to Part 2.7 C8) Elaborating on Part 2.7 C8, solar access for 23 Salisbury is not significantly impacted as the overshadowing is an existing issue as indicated on the shadow diagrams. The additional storey will slightly worsen this, but can’t be accurately determined from the shadow diagrams. (ii) ✔The roof design blends the additional height of the proposed first floor and is pushed back from the main frontage therefore not completely detracting from the character of the streetscape. Neighbouring property 23 Salisbury also has an additional modern style first floor addition showing a trend in developments in area. (iii) ✔ First Storey Setbacks make the additional storey discrete (iv) ✘ Landscaping not appropriate for the increased FSR. Further advice from Heritage Officer needed as the site is part of HCA 6. (v) ✔ increased height doesn’t have a significant visual impact as the roof is designed to make the transition to the additional storey discrete and subtle.
C9
(i) Overshadow & Privacy (ii)Streetscape (iii) Building setback (iv) Parking & Landscaping (v) Visual impact & views
✘ NO
Max 2 storey height
✔ YES
✔ YES ✔ YES ✘ NO ✔ YES
Development is for first floor addition. 6
4.1.6.2 Building setbacks Looks at overall footprint of building and outer extremities of that building C10
C12
(i) Dwelling front setback consistent with adjacent (ii) Side setback (at council’s discretion)
✔ YES
(i) Immediate frontage retained, first floor addition pushed back with larger front setback.
✘ NO
(iii)a. Consistent rear predominant first storey line or by merit
✔ YES
(ii) Non-compliant due to the nature of the narrow lot but the issues of overshadowing, solar access and privacy are existing as mentioned in the Part 2 Generic Provisions compliance table. (iii) No Predominant first storey building line currently exists on the streetscape, but has a similar first storey rear setback as 23 Salisbury making it compliant.
Notwithstanding setback compliances, proposal (i) maintains street character
✔ YES
Overall proposal aims to retain the character of the street as a whole. Reflects other new first storey development on the street, takes into consideration the look and setbacks of such developments to establish a prominent first storey building style.
4.1.6.3 Site Coverage C13
0-300sqm, Site coverage based on merit
✔ YES
Large site coverage has not changed,but as shown in the aerial view Fig 3 adjoining houses have similar site coverage as indicated by the yellow boxes (not accurate but representative).
Part 4.1.7 Car Parking C14
Convenient, efficient space, doesn’t detract or dominate
✔ YES
Wasn’t moved and is conveniently located on Stanmore Lane which is for this type of use. The current garage looks run down. The streetscape of Stanmore Lane has variety (Fig 4) and the garage alterations and additions will be effective in rejuvenating the rundown look of the lane and add to the variety or establish a character for first storey structures along Stanmore Lane.
C15 C17
Located at rear Not forward of building line
✔ YES ✔ YES
Garage location has not changed.
4.1.7.2 Design of garage doors C21
200 mm Setback Suitable colours
✔ YES
Meets setback requirements and the proposed material and colours suit the variety found on Stanmore Ln structures.
C22
Metal and specified type
✔ YES
Metal door, but door type not specified. Must use either roller shutter doors or panel lift doors as outlined in the DCP.
C23
Not obstruct public path
✔ YES
As long as design adheres to C22 choosing a suitable door.
C24
Garage off rear lane
✔ YES
Garage located off rear lane 7
4.1.7.5 Loft structure over garages C31
(i) Adheres to FSR, Height requirements LEP (ii) Minimal impact on amenity (iii) Bulk and scale not dominant (iv) No adverse effect on character of lanway
✔ YES ✔ YES ✔ YES ✔ YES
(i) Adheres to Height requirements from LEP Highest Ridge level - Garage Level = 28.040 - 22.100 = 5.94 m < 9 m (ii) Overshadowing of loft occurs on the street not properties (iii)(iv) Proposal looks similar to adjacent property 23 Salisbury which has a very similar loft over garage development and the overall lane streetscape contains variety (Fig 4) so there is no strong pattern and thus no adverse effect on the lane’s character.
Part 4.1.8 Dormer Windows - The south east loft has been deemed a dormer window and will be assessed as so C36
C40 C42 C41
Rear dormer may be required to be traditional style or assessed on merit Mindful of traditional models Existing design cues
✔ YES
Doesn’t dominate roof plane
✘ NO
✔ YES ✔ YES
✔ YES (4.1.12) Windows to be C73 compatible with existing
Two houses with rear dormer windows as part of the garage or ancillary structure Fig 5 and Fig 6. The style of this lane rear dormer is not established and there is a lot of variety on the streetscape so advice from the Heritage Officer is required. Design should reflect the existing rear dormers Fig 5 and Fig 6 to establish a consistent character for structures on the laneway, but with the advice from the Heritage Officer. The Style of the window proposed is almost as wide as the width of the garage and almost appears as a second storey. Along with the Heritage Officer’s advice, the window may need to use Fig 6 (43 Stanmore Lane) for design cues. According to the finish schedule, windows are aluminium with a timber look but should aim to match the existing dwelling windows
Part 4.1.9 Additional controls for contemporary dwellings C48
Maintains perceived scale
✔ YES
Fulfills all requirements as the roof disguises the first floor addition and has a larger front setback.
C49
Additions on streets with varied heights
✔ YES
The loft over the garage deemed compliant as Stanmore Lane has more variety in terms of height.
C50 C55
Appropriate new walls ✘ NO Heu of traditional colour ✘ NO
Main dwelling addition is render and paint finished with grey, does not match the existing brick, refer to 4.1.11 C59.
Part 4.1.11 Additional Controls for Residential period buildings C58 C60
No demolition of front Rear and side alterations to be subordinate
✔ YES ✔ YES
Roof demolition occurs after the first existing bedroom, but is a large amount of the existing roof and needs advice from the heritage officer.The first floor is discreetly transitioned by the proposed roof form and uses same roof tiling as existing
C59
No finishes other than that typical to period building
✘ NO
First floor to be rendered with grey colour which clashes with the warm red brick of existing dwelling. Addition must match the existing brick dwelling as per control C50(i) 8
5. 5(c) cont’d Part 2.21 Site facilities and waste management The development does not meet the requirements of Part 2.21 of Marrickville DCP 2011. As indicated by the controls, a Model Recycling & Waste Management Plan (RWMP) should be attached as the development consists of C1(i)a,b demolition and alterations/additions affecting more than 20 m2 of floor area. The current waste management plan drawing only indicates the location of storage and skip bins and is deemed unsatisfactory. Prior to works or construction, the applicant must submit Part 1 and Part 2 of the RWMP. A template is provided in Appendix 1 of Part 2.21 of the DCP. Part 8 Heritage and Part 9.3 Strategic Context (Stanmore North) The proposal has been assessed against Part 8 and Part 9.3 of the DCP, which informed the compliances discussed in the previous DCP tables and is deemed satisfactory but still must undergo assessment by Council’s Heritage Officer. Part 8 Heritage (8.3, 8.5.1) 8.3.2
Residential HCA
✔ YES
The development complies with all the controls stated in this section and overlaps with controls from Part 4.
✔ YES
Key Issue Objectives 2,4 While the proposal is making changes to the roof form it is still sympathetic to the overall style and area as there are similar roof forms as per 4.1.5 C2 and is more sympathetic than the first storey addition of 23 Salisbury (Fig 7)
Controls Controls
8.5.1
Victorian Italianate & Filigree
ObjectivesVictorian
Main comments and other issues: Materiality - The addition of the first floor has satisfied controls regarding setback, discrete roof design, the external walls of the addition must reflect the existing brickwork. Garage Form,Dormer Window - Garage addition requires further advice from Heritage Officer, but recommended to reflect the design of either 23 or 43 Stanmore Lane (Fig 5 and Fig 6). Structural issues - Removal of internal wall may present structural issues for the support of the first floor, advice is needed from Council’s Civil Engineer. Overlooking/Privacy - Identified windows to be min. sill height and utilise opaque glazing Landscaping - With Heritage Officer approval, development should consider landscaping to accommodate for increased height and FSR (to ensure proportional development between built and natural elements of the site). 6. Public Consultation & Referrals 6(a) Notification & Advertisement Yes, public notification is required as per Clause 3.40 of EP&A 1979 and has been carried out as the new alterations have an impact on immediate residents and character of the streetscape. 6(b) Major stakeholders and impact on them (as explained in 5(c)) 23 Salisbury - May be subject to overshadowing, overlooking and privacy issues 27 Salisbury - Subject to overlooking and privacy issues into private space 6(c) Referrals To be internally referred to: ● Council’s Heritage Officer - Further assessment required as the property is in HCA 6, treatment of existing building and new elements need to be assessed by an expert, ● Council’s Engineer - The internal wall of existing kitchen is to be removed, needs assessment as to whether the retain walls are able to support a first storey addition 6(d) Submissions Received No submissions found on Innerwest’s Application Tracking website to be reviewed. 9
7. Environmental Planning & Assessment S4.15 Discussion (1) Matters to be considered in general (a) Provisions of various planning (i) The development was assessed against the MLEP 2011’s written instrument as and maps (ii) As per Clause 3.40 of EP&A Act 1979, public notification was provided for 19 days. (iii) The Marrickville DCP 2011 was used to assess the development and while it is recommended in Part 1.1.12 to prioritise in the order of Part 9, 8, 4, 2, the assessment has taken into consideration the controls presented in the site and precinct specific controls outlined in Part 9 throughout the entire assessment to ensure identify compliance or non-compliances. (b) Likely Impacts Environmental - The assessment notes that no landscaping is involved in the proposal but that it does require a RWMP to be submitted to ensure waste is handled as per Marrickville’s DCP. Social - The assessment highlights the impact on adjacent dwellings and provides solutions to solve overlooking and privacy issues, while striving to preserve the area’s desired character. Economical - As a residential building, there were no identified impacts in an economic sense. The convenient location of the house near the station and bus routes have been acknowledged. (c) Suitability of the Site The assessment referred to Part 8 and 9 of the DCP to understand the site/precinct controls and objectives to understand the suitability of the development for the site and as shown in the compliance tables was deemed satisfactory or suitable with certain conditions in place. (d) Submissions (f) Public Interest There were no submissions to be taken into consideration. The development has been deemed sympathetic to the community’s desired and appreciated heritage character of the area. (2)(3) Non-discretionary development standard Compliances and Non-compliances As explained in the MLEP compliance table in Section 5(a), the development is compliant to the non-discretionary standards set in the LEP and no conditions have to be further imposed. (3A) Relevant DCP Controls Compliances & Non-Compliances The comment column of the DCP Compliance table in Section 5(c) explains whether the proposal is compliant or non-compliant with the controls set in Part 2, 4, 8, 9 of the Marrickville DCP. Where there were non-compliances, as per the additional comments concluding Section 5(c), assessment took into consideration the existing issues of the site and provided flexible solutions, as required by (3A)(b) EP&A 1979 to allow the development to be more suitable and sympathetic to its setting within heritage conservation area. The solutions are colour coded blue throughout the DCP compliance table. 8. Conclusion and Recommendation The development application for 25 Salisbury Road has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the MLEP 2011 and Marrickville DCP 2011 and is deemed satisfactory to the relevant controls. To conclude assessment, it is considered that Development Application No. 2021/0166 is satisfactory and recommended for approval (with certain conditions in place) as the alterations and additions are subtle, and both structures are sympathetic to their street or lane frontage. The main dwelling structure addition iscompliant as the fronts of the house are untouched with alterations and additions occurring in the back 3 quarters of the house. The discrete transition design of the roof has also been deemed compliant, but issues of sympathetic materiality have been identified and addressed with recommendations to ensure the addition does not detract from the main streetscape of Salisbury Rd. The garage loft addition has also been deemed compliant as it is located at the rear, a low impact area and satisfies height and FSR standards. However, along with the advice of Council’s Heritage Officer, it is recommended that the form and dormer window must look to existing dormers along Stanmore Lane to establish a consistent pattern to enhance the character of the laneway. 10
