Sheer Property Group Pty Ltd & anor v Randwick City Council

The site and locality 14The site is Lot 1 in DP 5597 known as 143-145 Mount Street Coogee. It is located on the lower or eastern side of Mount Street between Clifford and Dudley Streets. The site slopes towards the rear of the property and the entry to the exiting semi-detached dwellings is below street level. There is no existing off-street parking on the site. 15Immediately to the north is a two-storey residential flat building and to the south is a pair of single storey semi-detached dwellings. There is a mixture of two and three storey residential flat buildings of a range of ages and styles. There are also other single storey detached dwellings further to the north. The majority of the dwellings and units on the eastern side have landscaped frontages and no off-street parking. 16The western or more elevated side of Mount Street, between Rainbow and Dudley Streets, comprises mostly one to two-storey detached dwellings and unit blocks on large lots, most of which have garages and driveways at street level. 17The site has no heritage significance nor is it located near a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area. 18The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and Zone No 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) (RLEP 1998).

Relevant controls and assessment framework 19The Development Application for this site was lodged prior to the commencement of RLEP 2012 and is therefore subject to the savings provisions in cl 1.8A of that Plan. The proposal and the remaining contention must therefore be assessed under RLEP 1998, however, where relevant, RLEP 2012 is considered. 20The relevant objectives of Zone No 2C in cl 12(1) RLEP 1998 are: (a) to provide for a medium density residential environment, and (b) to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas, and (c) to protect the amenity of existing residents, and (e) to encourage housing affordability, 21At the time the DA was lodged, Randwick Development Control Plan 1998 - Parking (RDCP 1998) was in force. However, it was agreed by the parties that Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) is the appropriate set of controls by which the proposal should be assessed. RDCP 2013 repeals all previous DCPs and has no savings provision. There is no inconsistency between RLEP 1998 and RDCP 2013 (s 74C(5) EPAA). 22The relevant Part of RDCP 2013 is Part B7 Transport, Traffic, parking and access in Part B - General Controls. 23Section 1 - Introduction, sets out the relevant aims and objectives of this Part. These objectives in cl 1.1 are: · To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial areas and strategic/ key sites. · To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network. · To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport. · To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance the streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety. 24Clause 2.1 Public transport, Section 2- Sustainable transport objective and control are: Objective · To integrate development with the public transport network and improve walking, cycling, sustainable transport options and public transport use. Control i) All development in addressing transport, parking and access requirements must consider and integrate transport measures that provide for greater use of public transport, walking and cycling. 25Clause 2.2 considers Car share. The relevant objectives and controls are: Objective · To encourage car share spaces in developments with high public transport access. Controls (relevant) i) Car share spaces are to be provided in residential and or/ commercial development where public transport accessibility is high and/or where a Transport Assessment Study is required. v) The establishment and operation of a car share scheme must occur soon after completion or occupation of the development. 26Clause 3.2 - Vehicle Parking Rates includes Table 1 in which the relevant numerical controls for multi-dwelling housing and residential flat buildings require: 1 space per 1 bedroom apartments (over 40m2), 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom apartments, and 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings. An accompanying Note states: "Car share facilities in certain locations are a viable option and should be discussed with Council staff". RDCP 2012 retains the vehicle parking rates specified in RDCP 1998 but adds the "Note" regarding car-share options. 27Clause 3.2 also states: Where development comprises an extension, modification or change of use to an existing development, Council will generally only require that additional parking be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or changes in use. 28Clause 3.3 deals with Exceptions to the Parking rates. The 'Explanation' states in part: There may be circumstances where it may not be physically possible or aesthetically desirable to provide parking (eg the provision of off street parking in the frontage of a heritage item or in areas of significant streetscape value). It is the responsibility of the applicant through the development assessment process to demonstrate that the proposed level of parking provision is adequate, or that the overall planning benefits of the proposed development outweigh the deficiencies. 29The controls in cl 3.3 list the relevant issues that must be considered for the particular development. These include: site and building constraints; streetscape; on street and public parking in the area as well as proximity and access to public transport; location of local services etc; safety; and provision of any integrated, sustainable transport options.

The hearing and evidence 30The hearing commenced on site. The Court and the parties had the opportunity of hearing from a number of local residents who had also prepared written submissions. The residents in attendance all reside on the eastern side of Mount Street. Their specific issues relating to parking include: · the difficulty of finding a relatively convenient parking space at night or on weekends resulting in problems for people with children, anyone bringing home their shopping, and especially the elderly, less mobile and disabled. · safety concerns, particularly for women who work late shifts and who must park a distance from their homes; · the proliferation of garages and driveways on the western side of the street, especially in conjunction with the number of rental properties in the area, has, over the years, resulted in a significant reduction the number of on-street parking spaces; · the architectural style and age of the units of the eastern side of the street do not provide opportunities for off-street parking; · those older units that have off-street parking have narrow driveways and exiting those driveways in a busy, densely parked street creates safety concerns for pedestrians and drivers; · physical constraints of high gutters and narrow nearby streets limits parking and create safety concerns, especially when unloading children; · contrary to the applicants' reports, the site is within 10-15 minutes walk of Coogee Beach and 3-5 minutes drive resulting in constant visitor traffic in summer; · it is unreasonable to assume that new residents wont have at least one vehicle. The recent census indicates that the population in the suburb has increased by 3% but car ownership by 12%; · the difficulty in finding legal on-street parking spaces leads to illegal parking in driveways and on footpaths; and · the availability of on-street parking identified in the parking consultants' reports is overstated, especially in regards to Clifford Street which is a narrow two way street. 31The Court and the parties viewed the site from the street, the nearby Mount Street streetscape, and Clifford Street. 32As the only contention concerns parking, the parties engaged relevant experts. Mr Garry Kennedy provided expert evidence for council, and the applicants engaged Mr John Coady. The experts prepared individual reports and a joint report. 33In preparing their individual reports, both experts had regard to a "Parking Assessment Report - Rev B" prepared by Silver Wolf Projects Pty Ltd in March 2013 and the relevant planning controls. In addition, Mr Kennedy undertook his own parking accumulation survey. The joint report also considered the 2006 census for Randwick LGA. 34The experts agree that if the 2006 Census information were used as an indication of the estimated average additional resident parking demand, as a consequence of the proposed development, the figure would be 0.92 spaces [not including visitor parking]. The experts also agree on the proximity of public transport and bicycle routes and the number of car share parking pods in the general vicinity (7). 35The Silver Wolf survey recorded the number of potential spaces (54) and occupied legal parking spaces in Mount Street between Rainbow and Dudley Streets and in Clifford Street between Mount and Cox Streets on Wednesday 13 February 2013 for 12 hours and for four days between Tuesday 26 February and Saturday 2nd March for 24 hours each. Mr Kennedy conducted his surveys in the same sections between 6.00pm and 11.00 pm from Saturday 22 to Thursday 27 June 2013. Mr Kennedy also included vehicles parked in driveways, on footpaths and in no-standing areas. 36The Silver Wolf survey reported parking occupancy rates from 57% to 98% with the greatest demand/ highest occupancy period being between 10.00pm to 5.00am. Mr Kennedy found occupancy rates of 81% to 120%. Figures greater than 100% indicate vehicles parked 'illegally'. 37In Mr Kennedy's opinion, the RDCP controls should apply and therefore the proposed development is short three spaces. He also considers that a 2-4-vehicle car-stacker located within the front setback would be a reasonable option and something that would not increase the existing high demand for on-street parking. 38Mr Kennedy also considers that the provision of bicycle lockers, the proximity to public transport, and the proposal for a car-share space would not guarantee that future occupants of the development would not own a car. In addition, the creation of a car-share space requires separate referral to, and approval by, the council's Local Traffic Committee. In his view, a car-share space is a complimentary approach but would not overcome the shortfall in spaces. 39In the light of his survey findings, Mr Kennedy finds that any further pressure on the already unsatisfactory parking conditions in Mount Street will result in further illegal parking, unsafe traffic and pedestrian conditions and reduced residential amenity. In his opinion, the proposal should not be approved without the provision of the additional parking required by RDCP. 40In Mr Coady's opinion, the RDCP requirements can be interpreted in a number of ways, especially in regards to the requirement for visitor parking arising from an extension to/ modification of and existing development. In his view, the 2006 Census for Randwick provides the best indication of likely additional residential parking demand of 0.92 spaces. Although he considers it is not clear whether there will be an increase in demand for visitor parking, he considers the proposal will generate more than one but less than two additional parking spaces. He maintains that this additional demand is minor and can be accommodated by the existing on-street parking opportunities identified in the Silver Wolf report. 41Mr Coady considers that any adverse implications of the proposed development will be mitigated by the sustainable transport initiatives of the provision of four bicycle lockers and a car share pod outside the site. In his view, these initiatives respond directly to the sustainable transport policy contained within RDCP 2013. He considers that the existing on-street parking congestion at night, as well as the public and sustainable transport options, will be a disincentive to car ownership. 42In regards to Mr Kennedy's off-street parking suggestion, Mr Coady considers it is neither practicable nor appropriate to provide off-street parking. In his opinion, the topography of the site makes it economically and aesthetically unattractive and would result in the loss of one to two kerbside parking spaces.

Submissions 43While accepting that sustainable transport options are relevant, Mr Rigg for the council maintains council's position that the shortfall in parking spaces as a consequence of the proposal merits its refusal. He argues that the parking demand figures obtained by Mr Kennedy support the council's and the local residents' concerns. Mr Rigg contends that the specific issues raised by the residents are compelling and should be given significant weight. 44Mr Staunton for the applicants adopts Mr Coady's conclusions in the joint report in regards to the sustainable transport thrust of the RDCP 2013. In particular, when considering Part B7, "it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the DCP considers sustainable transport options to be more important than the provision of off-street parking spaces, particularly in circumstances where such provision is difficult to achieve." 45In addition, Mr Staunton notes the response of the Design Review Panel to the original proposal for off-street parking. He also cites a number of controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013 that require the use of mechanical parking devices such as car stackers to be minimised, especially on difficult or constrained sites, and to ensure that car parking facilities do not dominate the property frontage or adversely affect the streetscape. 46Mr Staunton contends that apart from the streetscape implications, providing on-site parking encourages parking, removes on-street parking and is counter to the zone objective to encourage affordable housing. 47In regards to the car share proposal, Mr Staunton tendered material from 'GoGet', a car-share provider with whom Randwick Council has formed a partnership. The material, including a download from the City of Sydney, indicates that for every share car, 9-13 private cars are taken off the road. He also noted that council has the option of introducing a Residential Parking Scheme (cl 2.4 DCP 2012) that includes the possibility of not issuing permits to residents of new developments.

Findings 48After considering the evidence and the positions of the parties and the residents, I find that the appeal should be upheld subject to the inclusion of a condition of consent pertaining to car sharing. In coming to this conclusion I make the following comments. 49The site is located in an area zoned for multi-dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. The proposal is a relatively modest conversion of an existing older style semi-detached dwelling. In applying the parking rates in RDCP 2012, including the discounting in cl 3.2, at most, the proposal will result in three additional spaces. While the experts considered the 2006 census figures, which could indicate the loss of fewer spaces, I am obliged under s 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the EPAA and the findings in Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 to focus my attention on the DCP. 50The site is clearly constrained by its topography and the setbacks of the existing dwellings. I note the Design Review Panel's objections to the original proposal for off street parking. I also note Mr Staunton's submissions on the streetscape character of the eastern side of Mount Street and the requirements in RDCP 2012 to minimise the use of car-stackers and the like. I agree with the applicants that Mr Kennedy's suggestion of a car-stacker forward of the building line is unacceptable on aesthetic grounds as it would be completely out of character with the majority of frontages on the eastern side of Mount Street. 51It would also inevitably remove at least one parking space from the street for a driveway. 52During the hearing, some time was taken to consider the differences in parking occupancy rates found by Silver Wolf and Mr Kennedy. 53The data as presented in Mr Kennedy's tables do not enable a detailed interrogation of the actual occupancy rates of 'legal' parking spaces. It may be that people in dwellings with more than one vehicle chose to park in their own driveways rather than on the street. A greater than 100% figure does not necessarily mean than all legal on-street spaces were occupied. The fact that Mr Kennedy's surveys were undertaken on wet winter evenings may have been a factor. 54The Silver Wolf survey was carried out in the warmer months of February and March when one might expect more activity in a beachside suburb. However, this survey does not appear to record 'illegal' parking. 55The point is that there are limitations as to how much weight can be placed on survey data. However, I agree that an additional three spaces is modest and the Silver Wolf data suggests that most if not all of this demand could be met within the study area. This concurs with the March 2013 memorandum from council's Development Engineer in which he concludes that 'the parking deficiency alone does not form sufficient grounds for refusal of the application'. The independent planner engaged by council also concludes: The parking deficiency of 3 car spaces can generally be satisfied by the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity which is proximate to car share pods, public bus stops and the Coogee Town Centre. The parking deficiency is therefore acceptable. 56While the numerical controls have been maintained in the current DCP, I agree with Mr Coady that there is a clear and unambiguous emphasis on sustainable transport options in RDCP 2012 that is absent in the earlier DCP. Some of these strategies and their objectives and controls are listed in this judgment. 57The addition of the 'Note' in the vehicle parking rates table anticipates that car share facilities are a viable option in certain locations. Similarly cl 3.3 in RDCP 2012 accepts that in some circumstances, it may not be possible to provide on-site parking. In my view, the opinion of the Design Review Panel supports the argument that the site is unsuitable for on-site parking. 58Clause 2.2 in Part B7 RDCP 2012 deals with car share options. The 'Explanation' notes in part that these schemes are more viable where on-street parking is limited. Relevantly, the clause states: Car share schemes are effective on sites or in areas with higher density and ready access to good public transport and services. To operate successfully care share vehicles need to be highly visible, easily and safely accessed at any time (whether on or off the street) by residents and business operators on the site, as well as those in the surrounding precinct. Care share spaces can also be dedicated for the exclusive use of building occupiers, if desired. In this case, the cost of the car share can be met by strata levies and must be organised by the developer. 59It is common ground that the site is located within a walking distance of about 85 m to three bus routes in Oberon Street and is about 300 m from six bus routes in Carr Street. The site is in an area of increasing density with a significant number of rental properties and clearly limited on street parking. Therefore, it would seem to me that the site meets the criteria for the location of a car share space. 60The applicants proposed an application be made for a car share pod/ parking space adjacent to the site. While membership in a car share scheme would be available to anyone, the applicants would arrange membership for six occupants of the property for a minimum period of five years.[During the hearing, the parties drafted a condition to this effect should I decide in favour of the proposal. This condition is attached to this judgment as Annexure A.] 61While the allocation of a designated car share space in Mount Street would remove one generally available car space, it has the potential, in the longer term, to free up parking in the future should other new or existing residents choose to use the system. 62While it is clearly desirable for anyone who owns a car to park close to his or her dwelling, planning strategies that encourage higher density living in areas close to the city on public transport routes will inevitably lead to measures to decrease dependence on individual car ownership. 63In my view, the measures proposed by the applicants in regards to car share options are fully in line with the thrust of the sustainable transport measures detailed in RDCP 2012 and satisfy the relevant zone objectives in RLEP 1998.

Orders 64Therefore, after considering the evidence and submissions, and having regard to the matters to be considered under s 79C of the EPAA, I make the following orders of the Court. (1)Appeal 10382 of 2013 is upheld. (2)Development Application No. DA/488/2012 for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor and second floor additions and conversion of the existing building into multi-unit housing development comprising 4 dwellings, new boundary fencing, strata subdivision and associated site works at 143-145 Mount Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 is approved subject to the conditions of consent as agreed by the parties and including the condition in Annexure A. (3)The parties are to provide the Court with an agreed consolidated set of conditions, electronically in Word format, within 7 days of the date of these orders for inclusion in the Final Orders. (4)All exhibits except A and 2 are returned.

Judy Fakes Commissioner of the Court ANNEXURE A Draft condition Application shall be made under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 for approval of a car share parking pod adjacent to the property 143-145 Mount Street, Coogee, prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate and if approved the Applicant shall provide evidence to Council of a membership entitlement providing that six (6) occupants of the said property may use car share vehicles provided by GoGet Car Share or another relevant provider for a minimum period of five (5) years prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the said property under this development application. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 September 2013