Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

22nd February, 2002

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY 2002, AT 6:30 PM.

 

 

1           Council prayer

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY, 7TH DECEMBER, 2001.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 11TH DECEMBER, 2001.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12TH FEBRUARY, 2002.

 

3           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

4.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 7/2002 - SUBURB BOUNDARIES - 349 TO 373 AVOCA STREET, 1 to 17 EDWARD AVENUE AND 1 COURT AVENUE.

2

4.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 8/2002 - USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH FOR SYDNEY BRANCH SURF LIFESAVING COMPETITION.

6

 

4.3                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 9/2002 - FESTIVAL OF THE SAILS 2002 - USE OF FRENCHMAN’S BAY.

7

4.4

MAYOR’S MINUTE 10/2002 – USE OF COOGEE BEACH FOR SURF EDUCATION – REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

9

4.5

MAYOR’S MINUTE 11/2002 – USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH BY SOUTHSIDE SURF RIDERS ASSOCIATION.

11

 

 

5           General Manager's Reports

 

5.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2002 - 2001/2002 BUDGET - REVIEW as at 31 DECEMBER 2001.

13

 


5.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2002 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

16

 

 

6           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 13/2002 - SHOPPING TROLLEY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.

18

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 14/2002 - BOND FOR WASTE CLEAN UP FOR DEPARTING TENANTS.

27

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 15/2002 - IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW LITTERING LAWS.

29

 

6.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 16/2002 - MALABAR HEADLAND.

31

 

6.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 17/2002 - NATIVE TITLE APPLICATION NG6061/98  (NC97/8)DARUG TRIBAL ABORIGINAL CORPORATION.

34

 

 

7           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 6/2002 - INVESTMENT OF COUNCIL'S FUNDS-UPDATE OF POLICY NO. 3.02.07.

50

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 7/2002 - SUBURB BOUNDARIES - KENSINGTON/KINGSFORD.

57

 

 

8           Director Planning & Environment's Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 4/2002- 24 INMAN STREET, MAROUBRA. (DEFERRED).

60

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 5/2002 - COASTAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW SOUTH WALES DISCUSSION PAPER.

61

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 6/2002 - 707 - 745 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA JUNCTION - MAROUBRA MALL SHOPPING COMPLEX.

69

 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 7/2002 - 7 DUNCAN STREET, MAROUBRA.

80

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 8/2002 - 82 ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK.

93

 

8.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 9/2002 -  25 FRENCH STREET, MAROUBRA.

103

 

 

9           Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

9.1                       

By Councillor M. Matson – Persecution of Falungong Practitioners.

139


9.2

By Councillor P. Schick – Prohibiting Advertising material on private and public property.

139

9.3

By Councillor C. Matthews –Grant to enclose 50m Pool.

139

9.4

By Councillor C. Matthews – Amendment of Tree Preservation Order.

139

9.5

By Councillor T. Seng – Cross-Cultural Training Program.

139

9.6

By Councillor T. Seng – Tree Cutting Policy.

139

9.7

By Councillor T. Seng – E-Business.

139

9.8

By Councillor T. Seng – Gordon Gardens Apartment in Ku-ring-Gai.

140

9.9

By Councillor C. Bastic – Maroubra Beach – Parking Situation.

140

9.10

By Councillor C. Bastic – Bowen Library Awning.

140

9.11

By Councillor A. Andrews – Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Plan.

140

9.12

By Councillor A. Andrews – Wombat Crossing at South Coogee Public School.

140

9.13

By Councillor M. Matson – Deviation from George Street Tree Master Plan.

140

9.14

By Councillor M. Matson – Examination of Cost Benefit to the Community of Retaining Problem Trees.

140

9.15

By Councillor M .Matson – Report back on Response to previous Resolution on Backpackers.

141

9.16

By Councillor M. Matson – Response to Alcohol related riot in Coogee on January, 20th.

141

 

 

10         Urgent Business

 

11         Confidential Reports

 

12         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

13         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

14         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 7/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SUBURB BOUNDARIES - 349 TO 373 AVOCA STREET, 1 to 17 EDWARD AVENUE AND 1 COURT AVENUE.

 

 

DATE:

11 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0064

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR          

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 27th November, 2001, when considering suburb boundaries in regard to Kensington/Kingsford, Council resolved that the Mayor write to other affected person in Botany Street and Avoca Street with the respect to the suburbs of Randwick/Kingsford.

 

A petition was subsequently received from Mr and Mrs I Myers of 369 Avoca Street, Randwick on behalf of residents of 349 to 373 Avoca Street.  The Petition relates to the suburb boundary between Randwick and Kingsford in accordance with Council’s resolution and asserts the following:

 

We, the attached signatories, protest about the recent boundary changes made to this part of Avoca Street.

 

The boundary has been changed without any notification to all the attached residents and we now find ourselves living in “Kingsford” according to council, yet all residents mailing address has always been Randwick.  The first indication for the residents of Avoca Street, was the land rates for the year 2001.  All previous Land Rates were addressed Avoca Street RANDWICK.

 

Councils own boundary definition has been determined by road and street borders no residential boundary lines run through residential property except for the anomaly created from Bundock Street to Rainbow Street on the eastern side of Avoca Street.  Bundock Lane has been included as Randwick those properties facing Avoca Street have not.  The derivation of boundary line is extreme and unjust as all residents purchased their property as Avoca Street, RANDWICK.  Many signatories being long term residents.

 

Streets and roads have determined residential boundaries as alike have council wards in government elections.  Why has this boundary not been determined in the same manner?

 

This boundary change would necessitate notification, of change of address to Kingsford, to all Government bodies, all essential services, private correspondence and legal documents held by solicitor.

 

All signatories would like council to correct this anomaly by restoring the boundary to Avoca Street so that these residences are domiciled in the suburb of RANDWICK rather than Kingsford.  All residents bought houses in RANDWICK and prefer them to remain in RANDWICK.

 

We ask for your attention and reply in this matter.

 

The petition is signed by 18 persons residing in Avoca Street, Kingsford.

 

In addition, a further petition has been received from Mr Paul Haylen of 11 Edward Avenue, Kingsford, containing the signatures of residents of Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 Edward Avenue, seeking the inclusion of those properties into the suburb of Kensington, and which would also have the effect of including No. 1 Court Avenue into the suburb of Kensington.  This area was not in the original proposal considered by Council on 9th October and 27th November, 2001 and, as such, Council passed no resolution for their inclusion into that suburb.

 

ISSUES:

 

As detailed in an earlier report to Council on this subject, the process of suburb boundary reviews commenced in 1990, when the (then) Department of Lands wrote to all Councils, advising of a programme to ensure that “all suburb boundaries within Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong should be formally defined by 1992”.  It should be noted that prior to this time, there were no formally approved suburb boundaries in Randwick.

 

The Department advised that “formalising suburb boundaries will benefit the community by providing an important tool for planning and development, effective communication, consumer protection, support emergency services and have legal implications”.

 

The Department also advised that the final approval of suburb boundaries rested with the Geographical Names Board, pursuant to the Geographical Names Act, 1966.

 

Accordingly, in October 1990 Council resolved to prepare and seek public comment on draft boundaries for suburbs within Randwick and advertisements were subsequently placed in both local newspapers inviting public comment, and draft maps were placed on exhibition in the Council building.

 

It is unfortunate that residents directly affected were not letterboxed, and that the exhibition period took place during the Christmas vacation.

 

The draft map showed both Nos. 349 to 373 Avoca Street, Nos. 1 to 17 Edward Avenue and 1 Court Avenue as part of the suburb of Kingsford. It does not appear that any submissions were made by these residents.

 

The results of the public exhibition and consultation period were subsequently reported to Council in April 1991, with a recommendation that the draft plan (with other minor amendments) be adopted and referred to the Geographical Names Board.

 

The Geographical Names Board subsequently undertook its own consultation process over the proposed suburb boundaries.  A notice was placed in the New South Wales Government Gazette (No. 151, 25 October 1991), advising that the proposed suburb boundaries within Randwick were on exhibition at the Council building and invited comments on the proposed boundaries by 25 November 1991.  The exhibition map also showed Nos. 349 to 373 Avoca Street as part of Kingsford.

 

 It is understood the Geographical Names Board received no submissions in respect of the proposed boundaries for Kensington and Kingsford.  Subsequently, the Geographical Names Board approved the draft boundaries and notified its decision by way of the NSW Government Gazette (No. 17, 17 January 1992).

 

In 2000, using a map issued by the Land Information Centre (prepared for the Geographical Names Board), Council records of some ratepayers’ addresses were updated in the rates system.  It appears this correction alerted a number of people in Avoca Street to the 1992 decision of the Geographical Names Board in respect of the suburb boundaries of Randwick and Kingsford.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The original consultation that took place in 1991 was inadequate, and many residents were unaware of the proposal until updated rate notices indicated a change of suburb location. At the very least, affected residents should have been notified by the Geographical Names Board of the relevant changes.

 

As such, residents at 349 to 373 Avoca Street are understandably seeking a change to the suburb boundaries as gazetted in 1992 and the change requested for their inclusion in the suburb of Randwick is logical.

 

In order for Council to support the Avoca Street request, it will be necessary to prepare a draft map of the changes, place the draft on exhibition and undertake public consultation.  The final draft will need to be referred to the Geographical Names Board for determination.

 

In relation to the request from the residents of Nos. 1 to 17 Edward Avenue, Kingsford (which also impacts on No. 1 Court Avenue), it is considered that the variation proposed does not possess the same level of merit as the Avoca Street proposal and, in fact, could lead to further requests from owners in other adjoining streets for similar consideration and utilising similar reasoning.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That, in respect to Nos. 349 and 373 Avoca Street, Council prepare a draft map of changes to suburb boundaries, write to the affected residents and place the draft on public exhibition and undertake public consultation, in order for the final draft to be referred to the Geographical Names Board for endorsement and gazettal; and

 

(b)        That, in respect to Nos. 1 to 17 Edward Avenue and 1 Court Avenue, Council decline to accede to the request  by the residents of Edward Avenue to be classified as part of the suburb of Kensington.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of Petition from residents of No's 349 to 373 Avoca Street.

Copy of Petition from residents of No's 1 to 17 Edward Avenue.

Copy of gazetted Suburb Boundary Map by the Geographical Names Board.(ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER)         

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 8/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH FOR SYDNEY BRANCH SURF LIFESAVING COMPETITION.

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1411

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mr Brian Purdon, Secretary of the Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club has approached Council to waive the fees associated with the Sydney Branch Surf Lifesaving Competition to be held on Saturday, 23 February 2002 on Maroubra Beach. The Carnival will feature all metropolitan surf clubs plus entries from various parts of the State.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organisations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds in the amount of $451.00 for waiving the associated fees.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club is a non-profit organization $451.00 be allocated to cover the Carnival’s fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $451.00 to cover the fees associated with the Sydney Branch Surf Life Saving Competition to be held at Maroubra Beach on Saturday 23 February, 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 9/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FESTIVAL OF THE SAILS 2002 - USE OF FRENCHMANS BAY.

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1617

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a letter dated 15 February 2002, from Ms Margo Lagos of the Sutherland Shire Tourism Association INC., requesting that fees associated with the use of Frenchmans Bay for the “Festival of the Sails 2002” to be held on Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 April, 2002. be waived. 

 

Ms Lagos advises that the festival is community based and as such has limited funding and seeks support in waiving the activity fee for this year’s consent.

 

At La Perouse National Parks and Wildlife will be promoting the Museum and Bare Island guided tours. At Kurnell the Tourism Association is planning to moor a tall ship and all of the festival’s activities will take place in the National Park.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organizations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds required for waiving the fees amounting to $151.80 per day totalling $303.40.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the Sutherland Shire Tourism Association Inc is a non- profit organization, $303.40 be allocated to cover the event’s fees.  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $303.40 to cover the fees associated with the festival to be held on Saturday 23 and Sunday 24 April, 2002, at Frenchmans Bay.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 10/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF COOGEE BEACH FOR SURF EDUCATION - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

 

 

DATE:

16 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0636

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a letter from the Surf Life Saving New South Wales Inc requesting that the fees associated with the use of Coogee Beach for Surf Education Days held on 3 and 4 December, 2001 be waived.

 

Mr Jason McBain, Education Officer Surf Life Saving NSW advises that the reason for this request this is that Surf Life Saving NSW is a charity organisation and provides the Surf Education to schools on a non-profit basis and informs Council that the cost to the students involved in the Education Day is kept to a minimum so as to make the program available to the wider community.

 

Mr McBain believes that the benefits of the day are numerous for the individuals involved and the community as a whole as the focus of the days is to prevent drownings on our beaches.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organisations on a ‘needs basis.’ There is no allocated budget for this type of activity. Council must therefore allocate the funds required for the waiving of fees.  The costing is $631.40.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Surf Life Saving NSW is a no profit organisation and that $631.40 be allocated to cover the cost of the fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $631.40 to cover the cost of the Surf Education event which was held on 3 and 4 December, 2001 at Coogee Beach.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 11/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH BY SOUTHSIDE SURF RIDERS ASSOCIATION

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1411

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from the Southside Surfriders Association advising that the Association, in conjunction with Surfing NSW, will host this year’s “Surf For Life 2002 Youth Suicide Awareness” event scheduled for 9 March, 2002 at Maroubra Beach and seeks assistance with the waiving of associated fees.

 

ISSUES:

 

This charity surfing event which has been running for the past eight years, and has been organised to raise community awareness of youth suicide.  South Maroubra Surf Club has donated use of its club for the event and the event is being well supported by the local business community.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organisations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds in the amount of $315.90 for waiving the associated fees.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the Southside Surf Riders Association is a non-profit organisation $315.90 be allocated to cover the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $315.70 to cover the fees associated with the Southside Surfriders Association of “Surf for Life 2002 Youth Suicide Awareness” to be held at Maroubra Beach on 9 March, 2002.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2002                                                       

 

 

SUBJECT:

2001/2002 BUDGET - REVIEW as at 31 DECEMBER 2001

 

 

DATE:

12 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3562

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 This report is a review  of the Council’s  2001/2002 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2001/2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

Part 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2001/2002 year, based on current trends. The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the

Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory,

having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

b)         DECEMBER QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2001/2002 as at 31 December 2001:


 

 

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

Increase

(Increase )

 

 

( Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

$

$

$

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment & Regulatory Services

(206,552)

(145,650)

(352,202)

 

 

 

 

Environmental Planning

52,000

(3,500)

48,500

 

 

 

 

Community Development & Communications

(16,302)

(9,543)

(25,845)

 

 

 

 

Library Services

(16,188)

0

(16,188)

 

 

 

 

Assets Management

289,235

(318,516)

    

     (29,281)

 

 

 

 

Waste Management

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Governance, Management Support & Information

446,461

(71,445)

375,016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

548,654

(548,654)

0

 

 

 

 

 

The figures shown in the table above incorporate the proposed transfers to reserves of savings from staff vacancies and increases in revenues.  These funds will be held in reserves pending the next quarterly review in March, 2002.

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations and reserve funds balances as at 31 December  2001 are tabled.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer advises that: -

 

Council’s projected position is satisfactory.

 

A detailed review of all income and expenditure items will continue on a monthly basis in an effort to maintain Council’s objective of a balanced budged, and a further report will be submitted to Council at the end of the March quarter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1          That the report in relation to the December 2001 budget review be received and noted.

2          That the budget variations referred in paragraph (b) in this report be adopted

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

December Quarterly Budget Review 2001/2002 - under separate cover.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0238/1998,D/0292/199, P/000967, P/014072

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 required that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of the licence agreements between Council and –

 

(a)        Duffy’s Corner Occasional Care Centre Inc. for the purpose of childcare at 419a Beauchamp Road, Maroubra NSW 2034.

 

(b)       Steven Danny Meares for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse NSW 2036.

 

(c)        Brett Anderson for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 26/20 Boronia Street, Kensington NSW 2036.

 

(d)        Alfio Conti for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 169 Dolphin Street, Coogee 2034.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation required that the council pass a resolution authorizing the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to licence agreements between Council and -

 

(a)        Duffy’s Corner Occasional Care Centre Inc. for the purpose of childcare at 419a Beauchamp Road, Maroubra NSW 2034.

 

(b)        Steven Danny Meares for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse NSW 2036.

 

(c)        Brett Anderson for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 26/20 Boronia Street, Kensington NSW 2036.

 

(d)        Alfio Conti for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 169 Dolphin Street, Coogee 2034.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 13/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SHOPPING TROLLEY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1470

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Following a recent dispute between two residents over the abandonment of shopping trolleys in residential areas, advertisements have been placed in the Southern Courier to remind residents that the removal of shopping trolleys from the precincts of the shop is an offence and the abandonment of the shopping trolley in the public place is also an offence.   Leaving a trolley within the common property of a multi-unit dwelling may also be in breach of the Body Corporate’s by-laws.

 

The advertisements also advise that the major supermarkets have commissioned a company named Trolley Tracker.  This company operates a central contact number 1800 641 497 to receive information from the public and pass it to the trolley collector who can retrieve the trolley.   Trolley collectors who are authorized by the supermarkets are the only trolley collectors who receive information from Trolley Tracker.   This system has been in operation for five years.

 

ISSUES:

 

Trolley retrieval system

 

While these measures will assist in the return of shopping trolleys to their owners, there is a growing trend to take trolleys away from stores and abandon them in the streets in the expectation that the trolley collector will retrieve the trolley.   In the case of the recent dispute, one party had assumed a right to leave the trolley in the street, based on the premise that the collector would remove it.   Clearly, no such right exists.  

 

The abandonment of shopping trolleys in the public place detracts from the visual amenity of residential areas and exposes Council to an increased public liability risk, while the trolley remains abandoned.   In certain cases, trolleys are pushed into bushland and can be a major source of entrapped rubbish if pushed into waterways.   Once abandoned, shopping trolleys are also treated as public litterbins and are vulnerable to damage by vandals or misuse by other nuisance makers.   Trolleys that are damaged beyond repair pose a cost to Council in their removal and disposal.

 

Randwick’s population density and high percentage of transient and itinerant dwellers without private transport are contributing factors to the taking of trolleys from supermarkets.   Where there are steep slopes surrounding the shops, this also contributes to the trolleys being abandoned in the streets.

 

The loss of shopping trolleys is a multi-million dollar expenditure for the retail industry.  Trolley Tracker circulates leaflets to letterboxes in target areas at the request of the stores, to remind residents that it is an offence to remove a trolley from the shopping centre.   The supermarkets do not condone the removal of trolleys, but the prosecution of such an offence would be problematic.   Similarly, the prosecution of the offence of abandonment would require proof that the offender did not intend to return the trolley.

 

Trolley security system

 

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd wrote to the General Manager on 4 February 2002, seeking Council’s support to the trial in Randwick of the Radlock Trolley Management System.   This system has been in operation at Coles’ Gladesville supermarket for over two years.   A copy of the letter is attached with pictures of the Radlok system and typical questions and answers about the system.

 

The system elements comprise a lock on two diagonally opposite wheels of the trolley, with a brake that activates by raising the wheels off the ground as the trolley passes over a magnetic activator at the boundary of the shopping centre.   The magnetic bar is located within a row of paving blocks, which are colour-matched to the existing pavement.   A special key used by the trolley collector unlocks the brake.  The system also incorporates a public education campaign prior to its introduction.

 

Coles propose to trial the system at Coles Randwick, located in the Randwick Plaza at 148 Belmore Road.    The row of paving blocks could be installed within the threshold of the Plaza, in which case the trolley collector and an assistant would maintain the entrance to the Plaza.   At Gladesville, the paving blocks are located across the entrance to the adjacent Council carpark and at all other entrances to the shopping centre.   A similar approach would be made to the management of the Royal Randwick Plaza.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

The core of the trolley security system proposal is the right of the supermarket to reduce the loss of its property, by curbing the trend towards removing the trolley to a considerable distance from the shopping centre.  The locking system effectively achieves this, thereby encouraging shoppers to bring their own shopping trolleys, baskets or bags, or order home delivery or seek assistance to get to a transport vehicle.   There are benefits to Council in reduced public liability, improved amenity, reduced environmental harm, reduced complaints and reduced traffic congestion with trolley retrieval trailers.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a)         Note Council’s ongoing support to the existing trolley retrieval system; and

 

b)         Support the trial by Coles of the Trolley Management System at the Randwick Plaza and other appropriate locations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Copy of Coles letter dated 4 February, 2002

2. Copy of Radlok Information and Questions & Answer Sheets  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 






 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 14/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOND FOR WASTE CLEAN UP FOR DEPARTING TENANTS

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1470

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 27 March 2001, Council resolved to seek a report on the feasibility of real estate agents forfeiting part of the rental bond to cover the costs of cleaning up where the tenant leaves rubbish dumped in the public place.

 

ISSUES:

 

During the implementation of the illegal dumping strategy during 2001, full-page advertisements were placed in local papers, regarding the responsibilities of owners and their agents to ensure that tenants complied with the provisions of tenancy agreements in respect to compliance with the “laws of the land”.   This included the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in relation to illegal dumping offences and penalties.

 

The Litter Patrol Officers have used these advertisements to remind real estate agents of their responsibilities and have received considerable support from the majority of real estate agents in arranging clean up of material dumped by defaulting tenants. 

 

A letter was sent to all real estate agents on 14 October 2001, canvassing their views on the workability of forfeiting part of the rental bond for post-departure clean up.  Of the six responses, three agreed and three had reservations that the Residential Tenancy Tribunal generally favoured the tenant and Tribunal costs were prohibitive.   Certain real estate agents do withhold part of the rental bond if clean up is required.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Combined and cooperative action by the Litter Patrol and real estate agents is working and this should avoid the need for a specific bond for clean up.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note that forfeiture of the rental bond for clean up for departing tenants has been canvassed and there is insufficient industry support for this measure.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 15/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW LITTERING LAWS

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3261

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 22 May 2001, Council resolved to seek a report on the implementation of the new littering laws regarding advertising material and that information on the new laws be widely distributed.   (check with Maureen)

 

ISSUES:

 

The second stage of the amendments to the littering provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 came into effect on 1 April 2001.   These amendments make it an offence for a person to place advertising material under the windscreen wiper of a car and to place material in an unsecured manner near letter boxes or where it may blow away and become litter.   These amendments did not apply to local newspapers, nor did they apply to billposters as the latter are deemed to be covered under planning controls for outdoor advertising.   The EPA provided explanatory brochures.

 

The Rangers began to implement the new laws from 1 April and there was a high level of awareness and response.   The Rangers issued fines in relation to unsecured material and contacted local newspapers to ensure that they similarly complied with the securing of papers from blowing into streets.   The Council’s precinct liaison staff provided copies of the EPA brochure to all of the Chambers of Commerce for forwarding to their members.    These brochures were correctly targeted at businesses that might engage delivery agents to place advertising material in letterboxes or on car windscreens.  The response has been pleasing.   The Litter Patrol has taken over enforcement of these measures.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note that information on the littering laws was provided to the target sector of local businesses and that there has been a good response to these measures.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 16/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MALABAR HEADLAND

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0976

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 18th September 2001 Council resolved that:

 

(b)      Council submit an FOI application to the Commonwealth Government requesting all documents associated with the Malabar Headland, in particular documentation on any other remediation studies that have been done and the costs of such remediation; 

 

The FOI application was lodged with the Department of Finance and Administration on 3rd October 2001 following which clarification of the scope of Council’s request was sought.

 

In order for the application to proceed Council advised that the scope of the request was to access all documents relating to any remediation studies that have been carried out on the Malabar Headland (Lots 1,2,4) including the Anzac Rifle Range in the last ten (10) years together with both estimates and actual expenditure in relation to remediation studies and / or remediation works.

 

ISSUES:

 

By letter dated 1 November 2001, the Department advised that based on the above parameters, the estimated cost of processing Council’s request was $20,605.  The letter further advised:

 

You may contend that the charge has been wrongfully assessed, or should be reduced or not imposed.  In deciding whether to reduce or not impose the charge, the decision maker must consider any relevant reasons, including either of the following reasons:

 

●          whether the payment of the charge, or part of it, would cause you financial hardship; and

 

●          whether the giving of access to the documents is in the general public interest.

 

Council made application to the Department requesting that the fee be waived or reduced  on the grounds that the information requested under FOI previously has been made available to interested members of the public upon request and it is anticipated that Council will also make documents received under this application available for access by the public upon its receipt.

 

In a letter dated 3rd December 2001 the Department advised that it had considered Council’s application and advised that in accordance with the FOI Act Council had not made a case for financial hardship and had not made a case for public interest as the application was not in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public.

 

The Department also suggested that Council review the scope of its application as a means of reducing the cost of processing.  Following this suggestion, Council amended the scope of the application to request documents over the past five years rather than the last ten years.

 

By letter dated 16th January 2002, the Department advises that the cost of processing the amended application is estimated to be $10,785.

 

EPA ACTIONS

 

Since Council last considered this matter information has been received in relation to actions taken by the New South Wales EPA in relation to the Malabar Headland site.

 

On 30th October 2001 the EPA issued a Draft Declaration to the Department of Finance and Administration under the provisions of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, in respect of this land.

 

The EPA advise that the Department of Finance and Administration has responded stating that they are willing to submit an Environmental Management Plan in respect of the site.  The EPA is currently considering this response.  The outcome of these deliberations is expected shortly.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has not voted funds to cover the cost of this FOI application.  It is my understanding that Council’s decision to lodge this FOI application in September 2001 was made on the basis that the costs involved would not be substantial as Council was attempting to assist the Department of Finance and Administration by facilitating wider consultation.

 

The payment of $10,000 in relation to the reduced scope application may not provide the specific information which Council is seeking and further applications may need to be submitted in order to obtain satisfactory results.

 

Having regard to the above information together with the action currently being taken by the New South Wales EPA it is considered that Council should not proceed with the FOI application at this time.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.  Council not proceed with its FOI application in relation to Malabar Headland at this time pending the outcome of action being taken by the NSW EPA;

 

2.         The Department of  Finance and Administration be advised of Council’s concern in relation to the lack of publicly available factual information in relation to the remediation of Malabar Headland; and

 

3.         Council again offer to assist the Department of Finance and Administration in undertaking consultation associated with development of a long term Plan of Management for Malabar Headland.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 17/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

NATIVE TITLE APPLICATION NG6061/98  (NC97/8)Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation.

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4305

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation has lodged a claim under the National Native Title Act. Land parcels within the Randwick local government area are under claim. Randwick City Council (RCC) has been joined in the proceedings in the Federal Court and is presently undertaking further investigations as to the most appropriate response to this claim.

 

2.0 BACKGROUND

 

The Native Title Claim application involves approximately 482 separate parcels of land across 33 local government areas. The claim has been registered on the Register of Native Title Claims. The areas covered by the application are mostly areas of unallocated Crown land.

 

The notification period advertising this claim was from 22 August to 21 November 2001. The National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) requested that RCC display maps under claim, RCC complied with this request.

 

Interested parties to register to be a party to the claim need to complete a Federal Court form (a Native Title Form 5). Under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) there can be only one determination of native title for a particular area. If a person with native title rights does not become a party to this application, there may be no other opportunity for the Federal Court, in making its determination, to take into account those native title rights and interests in relation to the areas concerned.

 

Within Randwick local government area approximately 60 identified lots have been claimed. Further to this the cliffs and rock platforms running from Clovelly Beach south along the coast to Little Bay have been claimed within the Randwick local government area.


 

3.0 ISSUES

 

Identification of land claimed

The information provided by the NNTT states the following:

 

‘The application covers specifically identified parcels of Crown Land within an external boundary. The application does not include any land in which NSW Minister for Land and Water Conservation has granted an interest (that is still current) under the Crown and Act.

 

Please note that application does not include any freehold land ( except some land held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Act) in the Sydney metropolitan area and does not cover waters outside the specified parcels of Crown land identified.”

 

Bowen and Gethary advised that clear definition of interest in the claim was prudent before being party to a court action as for example Council may be responsible for advising persons such as leaseholders of Council facilities on land under claim.

 

The maps provided by NNTT were vague and in most cases parcel identifiers were not available. Therefore some land claimed remains unidentified. The areas claimed are allegedly unallocated Crown land although in some areas the land claimed has recently changed status. Council officers have attempted to identify the lands claimed and have completed a draft table (refer Attachment 1) and draft map of the areas claimed (AO format - not included).

 

It would appear that a number of areas initially claimed are not able to be claimed under the terms of the Act e.g. Prince of Wales Hospital and developed residential land. Bowen and Gethary have advised that the areas under claim are currently under review by DLWC.  Bowen and Gethary have also advised due to the ongoing changes to the land claimed it is not worthwhile to carry out title searches for the land claimed until the land claimed is defined.

 

Council interest in some areas claimed

Interest that Council has in some of the claimed land includes for example:

 

·          Extensive areas of coastal rock platforms and cliffs. Some of these areas contain significant coastal walk infrastructure and are identified for future coastal walk way

·          Area such as Wylie’s and McIvers Bath has been claimed (as part of the coastal strip claimed)   which are currently under lease by Council.

·          Sand areas of Clovelly and Maroubra Beach have been claimed.

·          Drainage easements have been claimed

 

Further to this Bowen and Gethary recommend that Council continue to ascertain the nature of its interest in the land subject to the claim and at an appropriate time conduct an analysis of tenure history pursuant to the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993

 

Party to the Claim

Bowen and Gethary submitted an application (Form 5) to be party to the claim in the Federal Court in November 2001. On 17/12/2001 Bowen and Gethary received notice from the Deputy District Register of the Federal Court that Council’s application to be joined as a party to the proceedings was successful and an order was made that the Council be joined to the proceedings. A schedule of parties has also been provided (refer Attachment 2).

 

The Court also ordered that the NNTT is to provide a report by 28 February 2002 as to whether, in the opinion of the NNTT, it is worthwhile continuing with mediation.

 

The proceedings have been listed for further directions on 12 March 2002 with liberty to restore upon application to the Court.

 

4.0 CONCLUSION

 

In summary the following describes the status of the Native Title claim within the Randwick LGA:

 

·          Some of the land claimed has been identified; Assets and Infrastructure Department have outlined Council’s interest in this land.

·          Bowen and Gerathy have submitted a Form 5 to the Federal Court and RCC has been joined in the proceedings.

·          The National Native Title Tribunal will contact Bowen and Gerathy to arrange mediation between the parties and council will need to detail their interests.

 

5.0 RECOMMENDATION

 

1.         That the Native Title Claim NG6061/98 (NC97/8) Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation be noted.

 

2.         That Bowen and Gerathy be engaged to assist Council with the Native Title Claim as required.

 

3.         That leaseholders and other third parties of crown land under claim be notified of the claim and council’s acceptance as a party to the claim.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1

Attachment 2 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 


NATIVE TITLE CLAIM - DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMED LAND

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC DESC

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

4

 

A

 

 

Clovelly Beach –area of sand

6A -Open space

Council is trustee for surrounding reserve

Council cleans, maintains and controls beach

4

 

B

 

 

Where exactly?

Cliffs and rock platforms

6A- Open space

Council Infrastructure – Scuba Diving Access Ramp. Possibly Cliffbrook Parade, unmade road – 2m concrete footway and steps.

Integral Part of Eastern Beaches Coastal Walkway

4

D, E, F,

 

 

Cliffs and Rock Platforms

6A- Open space

Intertidal Protection Zone

Adjoins Council Reserve and Council Reserve

Includes Malabar public ocean pool.

4 D – Fishing Club house, boat storage, access ramp, access for Emergency service,

4

G

 

 

Adjacent to Nagle Reserve

6A- Open Space

Drainage Reserve – Sydney Water Infrastructure enter Council infrastructure

4

H

 

 

Residential zoned land off Jennifer St adjacent to St Michael’s

2B - Residential

 

7

 

A

 

 

Holmes St into Anzac Pde

2B - Residential

Drainage Reserve – Residents have driveway access to garages on reserve.

7

 

B

 

 

Holmes St near Morvely

2B - Residential

Drainage Reserve – unused pipeline. Need for future pipe may be necessary.

7

 

C

 

 

 

2B - Residential

Creek line

8

 

A, B, C,

 

 

Nth and sth of Clovelly Beach - Cliffs and rock platforms

6A - Open space

Ancillary public recreation area

Council cleans, maintain and controls beach

Check if Intertidal Protection area

8

 

D

 

 

Adj Trennery Reserve - Cliffs and rock platforms near baths

6A- Open space

Ancillary public recreation area

 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DESC

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

8

 

E, F

 

 

Nth Cairo St to Lurline Bay Cliffs and rock platforms

 

6A- Open Space

Council Infrastructure – Conc. Walkway

Ocean pool

Properties Liguria to Cuzco own to high water mark

8

 

G

 

 

Lurline Bay to nth side of Jack Vanny Reserve - Cliffs and rock platforms

 

6A- Open Space

Council Infrastructure – formed pathways

8

 

H

 

 

Nth side of Jack Vanny Reserve to nth side Maroubra Beach - Cliffs and rock platforms

6A- Open Space

Emergency vehicle access, Mahon public ocean pool, amenities etc

8

 

I

 

 

Maroubra Beach – area of sand

6A- Open Space

Council cleans, maintains and controls beach. Adjoins Council (Arthur Byrne) Reserve

8

 

J

 

 

Rear of rifle range - Cliffs and rock platforms

6A- Open Space

 Future part of Coastal Walkway

20

 

 

1527

300 D?

Norfolk Pde?

Matraville RSL Club – Carpark area

2A - Residential

Integral to functioning of RSL

Inform Occupiers

42

 

 

1

39760

475 – 479 Bunnerong Rd

Vacant land adjacent to fire Brigade

2A - Residential

Chamber of commerce have requested future carpark

 

67

 

 

1064

75201

 

 

 

109

 

 

1492

75201

145 – 149 Beach St

Mc Ivers (Coogee Ladies Baths)

6A- Open Space

Find out lease info

Council infrastructure, council funded improvements

 

 

 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DES

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

145

 

 

1799

822244

4 B Neptune Street

Wylie’s Bath

6A- Open Space

Find out lease info

Council infrastructure, council funded improvements

177

 

 

2

39760

475 – 479 Bunnerong Rd

Fire Brigade

2A- Residential

Vacant land adj Fire Brigade

241

 

 

2658

752015

Military Road,?

 

Cemetery Use – Stonemasons Yard?

245

 

 

2818

752015

Military Road

2A- Residential

Cemetery Use – Stonemasons Yard ?

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access Rd to National park and NSW Golf Course

320

 

 

401

752011

Prince of Wales Hospital

 

Facility for residents of Randwick

334

 

 

4789

752015

51-61 Franklin St Matraville

6A- Open Space

Horse Agistment Area – Lease with Crown

Notify Occupier

335

 

 

4807

752015

Military Rd

 

Cemetery Use – Stonemasons Yard?

337

 

4858

752015

 

71 Military Rd

Bumborah Point

6A- Open Space

Future addition to Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

Heritage Conservation area

353

 

 

 

 

The Coast Golf Course

 

Part of golf course

357

 

 

5244

820345

 

 

Botany Cemetery?

358

 

 

5245

820345

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DES

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

360

 

 

5255

824002

1611 Anzac Parade Bird’s Boatshed & Café,

6A- Open Space

Area in front of Boatshed and Café. Area allows access to Café

362

 

 

5263

824057

64 Austral St – Previously Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Subdivided lot and Residence – Notify Occupant?

363

 

 

5264

824057

62 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

364

 

 

5265

824057

60 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

365

 

 

5266

824057

58 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ - Strata

Ditto

366

 

 

5267

824057

56 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ - Strata

Ditto

367

 

 

5268

824057

54 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

368

 

 

5269

824057

52 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ - Strata

Ditto

369

 

 

5270

824057

50 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

370

 

 

5271

824057

48 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto


 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DESC

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

371

 

 

5272

824057

46 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

372

 

 

5273

824057

44 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

373

 

 

5274

824057

42 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

374

 

 

5275

824057

40 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

375

 

 

5276

824057

38 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

376

 

 

5277

824057

34 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

377

 

 

5278

824057

36 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ -  Strata

Ditto

378

 

 

5279

824057

26 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ -

Ditto

380

 

 

5280

824057

24 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

 


 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DESC

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

381

 

 

5281

824057

22 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

382

 

 

5282

824057

20 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

383

 

 

5283

824057

18 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

384

 

 

5284

824057

16 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

385

 

 

5285

824057

14 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

386

 

 

5286

824057

12 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

387

 

 

5287

824057

10 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

388

 

 

5288

824057

8 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

389

 

 

5289

824057

6 Austral St – Previously  Pt of Long Bay Goal

2A Dwelling House & Dual Occ

Ditto

 

 

 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DES

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

401

 

 

56

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

 

402

 

 

57

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

 Council has plans to amalgamate to Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

404

 

 

58

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

Ditto

405

 

 

59

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

Ditto

406

 

 

 

 

 

Residential lots & public reserve- playground ?

 

409

 

598

752015

 

54 – 118 Franklin St

6A- Open Space

Residential lots & public reserve- playground ?

413

 

 

60

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

Council has plans to amalgamate to Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

415

 

 

61

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

Council has plans to amalgamate to Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

416

 

 

610

752015

627 BUNNER ? Rd

Matraville

6A- Open Space

Allows access to La Perouse Pony Club (lease area) incl Yarra Bay Pony Club. Indigenous vegetation check with Tina Dingby

417

 

 

62

752015

12- 14 Kooringa Av

6A- Open Space

Council has plans to amalgamate to Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

467

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

469

 

1

 

119108

Near cnr of Frenchmans & Avoca St

2A-Residential

Possibly ROW to property – impact on residents access to properties- Check if drainage easement

470

 

2

 

119108

 

2A- Residential

Ditto

 

 

 

NATIVE TITLE No

RCC

DES

LOT No

D P No

DRAFT ADDRESS

ZONING

COUCIL INTEREST

471

 

3

 

119108

 

2A- Residential

Ditto

481

 

 

/35

251284

Local La Perouse Council

2B- Residential

Residence?

482

 

 

/8//

251284

Murron Place & Goolnda Place

2B- Residential

Vacant – integral to Reserve

 

 

 

 

                                                                  







 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 6/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

INVESTMENT OF COUNCIL'S FUNDS-UPDATE OF POLICY NO. 3.02.07

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0745 xr 98/S/0911

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Minister for Local Government has issued an Order notifying forms of investments for the purposes of section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.  Consequently it is necessary for Council’s Investment policy 3.02.07 to be reviewed.

 

The amended policy has been prepared with the assistance of Grove Financial Services Pty Ltd.

 

The policy for making new policies is laid down in Policy 1.01.01 and this requires, amongst other things, that the updated policy be submitted to Manex in the first instance, which took place on 30th January, 2002.

 

Accordingly, the updated Policy is now submitted for Council’s endorsement.

 

ISSUES:

 

Overlaying a general list of Authorised Investments, the Department has used the guidelines under the Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 as a basis for a Council to determine a prudent investment (previously not a documented requirement).

 

The Trustee Act defines the legal responsibilities of the trustee (i.e. Councils) and the need for accountability as follows:

 

!           Investment decisions must be made by not “an average person” but by a prudent person who has exercised a “duty of care”, i.e. is suitability qualified and experienced.

 

!           Trustees must not be overly conservative by merely investing in safe, low risk, low interest investments.  Such an approach could be criticised as being unwise and injudicious.

 

!           Once investments have been made they cannot be left unmanaged for long periods.

 

!           Council’s investment portfolios’ performance and strategy needs to be reviewed at least annually versus benchmark(s).  Hence, there is now greater emphasis on accountability to ratepayers for investment performance.

 

A Council should develop and document an investment strategy as part of its overall financial plan.  This would need to cover the risk/return requirements of the portfolio based on the need to meet a minimum budgeted requirement.  It should, therefore, cover the additional volatility of returns should a portion of Council’s longer term funds be invested in longer-term assets.

 

Section 14C of the Trustee Act emphasises that trustees should seek out and obtain independent and impartial advice.

 

The revised legislation has broadened the range of professionally managed funds available to Councils.  Under the revised list of authorised investments, Council may now invest in any managed fund as long as the fund manager is rated A or better by S&P.

 

Current Investment Strategy

 

With the trend toward “Prudent Person” Council recognised the importance of using professionally managed funds to meet its risk management objectives, for the following key reasons:

 

!           Enhanced  returns within an acceptable risk tolerance.

 

!           Managed funds satisfy the mark-to-market and credit risk disclosure requirements of AAS33.

 

!           Streamlined administration for Council Staff as there are now fewer rollovers and reinvestments.

 

!           Improved liquidity, as funds as usually available within 1-3 days of notice with no penalty.

 

!           An accurate reporting system showing mark-to-market returns versus benchmark.

 

Investment Policy Summary

 

It is proposed to update Council’s current Investment Policy in the following main areas:

 

Sections 1.1 & 1.3 -                Legislative Authority for Investment/Authorised Investments.

Includes details on the revised authority for investments under the recently amended Order, and the new list of authorised investments.

 

Section 1.5(b) -                       Council’s Investments with Fund Managers.

 

Where Councils had been restricted to managed funds rated AA or better (Cash and Cash Enhanced Funds), the new Policy lifts this restriction to allow the use of credit enhanced cash-plus funds which should provide an additional 0.20% to 0.35% p.a. return.

 

Under previous legislation the AA-rating restriction meant that professionally managed funds were subject to tighter credit restrictions than Council’s own internal staff, who were subject to BBB-rated securities or better.

 

Credit enhanced funds may now invest in the securities as Council.  However, the funds will provide much tighter risk management and enhanced performance, whilst still providing almost immediate access to funds.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed changes to the Council’s Policy No. 3.02.07 have been prepared based on an Order by the Minister for Local Government.  Manex, at its Meeting held on 30th January, 2002, reviewed the updated Investment Policy and resolved that it be referred to Council for adoption.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the updated Investment Policy No. 3.02.07 be adopted, in accordance with the Minister for Local Government’s requirements; and

 

(b)        That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Updated Policy No. 3.02.07 - Investments.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


DRAFT

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 3 – CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:      /        /20                                                                                                                    Policy No:  3.02.07

 

 

POLICY TITLE:                    INVESTMENTS – SURPLUS CASH

 

 

File No:                                  98/S/0745

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To undertake authorised investment of surplus funds after assessing credit risk and diversification limits.

 

To maximise earnings from authorised investments and ensure the security of Council funds.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

- As per document following –

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:  F135/1997                                                                                          Meeting Date:  17 June, 1997


DRAFT

 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

INVESTMENTS – SURPLUS CASH

 

 

1.1          LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

 

All investments are to be made in accordance with:

 

!               Local Government Act, 1993 – Section 625;

!               Local Government Act, 1993 – Order (of the Minister) dated 25 November, 2000;

!               The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Section 14A(2), 14C(1) & (2);

!               Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation, 1999 – Clause 16

 

1.2          DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

 

The General Manager has authority to invest surplus funds and under policy 2.01.04 has sub-delegated authority to invest surplus funds to relevant staff.

 

1.3             AUTHORISED INVESTMENTS

 

All investments must be denominated in Australian Dollars.  Authorised Investments would include but not necessarily be limited to:

 

!               Local / State / Commonwealth Government Bonds, Debentures or Securities;

 

!               Managed funds (securities) issued by a fund manager (or its ultimate parent company), which has a minimum long term credit rating of A (S&P Australian Ratings) or better, or Moody Investor Services equivalent.

 

!               Deposits in prescribed securities that either have a minimum long term credit rating of A or short term rating of A1 from Standard & Poors or Moody Investor Services equivalent;

 

!               Interest bearing deposits / securities issued by a licensed bank, building society or credit union;

 

!               Investments with NSW Treasury Corp/Hourglass Investment Facility; and

 

!           Deposits with the Local Government Investment Services (“LGIS”).

 

1.4          GUIDELINES

 

(a)           COUNCIL’S DIRECT INVESTMENTS

 

(i)            Quotations On Investments

 

Not less than three (3) quotations will be obtained from authorised institutions whenever an investment is proposed. The best quote on the day will be successful after allowing for administrative and bank costs, as well as having regard to the limits set by this policy statement.

 

(ii)           Term to Maturity

 

The term to maturity of any of Council’s direct investments will range from “at call” to 12 months.


 

(b)        INVESTMENTS WITH FUNDS MANAGERS

 

Council may deposit funds in the managed funds listed below providing the funds manager or its controlled parent entity have a minimum rating of A from Standard and Poors or A2 from Moodys.

 

 

Minimum

Maximum

 

 

Investment

Exposure as %

 

Fund Type

Time Horizon

Total Investment Portfolio

Benchmarks

Cash Funds (at call)

0-90 days

0-100

11am

Cash-Plus / Cash Enhanced Funds / or equivalent

3-12 months

0-95

Bill Index

 

Fund Manager Diversification

 

No fund manager at any time shall hold more than 45% of Council’s total investments when the investment was first made.

 

(c)           GENERAL POLICY GUIDELINES

 

(i)            Diversification/Credit Risk – Direct Investments

 

The amount invested with any one financial institution will not exceed the following percentages of average annual funds invested. When placing investments, consideration will be given to the relationship between credit rating and interest rate.

 

Long Term Rating

Short Term Rating

Percentage of Total

(Standard & Poors)

(Standard & Poors)

Investments

AAA to AA-

A1+

45%

A+ to A

A1

30%

A- to BBB-

A2

20%

 

(ii)           Credit Ratings

 

If any of the funds/securities held are downgraded such that they no longer fall within Council’s investment policy guidelines, they will be divested within 30 days or as soon as is practicable.

 

The short term rating order 0-365 days (as defined by Standard and Poors Australian Ratings) is:

 

A1+

extremely strong degree of safety regarding timely payment

A1

a strong degree of safety for timely payment

A2

a satisfactory capacity for timely payment

 


 

The long term rating order is:

 

AAA to AAA-

an extremely strong capacity to repay

AA+ to AA-

a very strong capacity to repay

A+ to A-

a strong capacity to repay

BBB+ to BBB-

an adequate capacity to repay

 

(d)           REPORTING

 

(i)           In accordance with Clause 16 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation, 1999 a monthly report is to be provided to Council detailing the investment portfolio in terms of performance and counter party percentage exposure of total portfolio. The report must include a certificate by the responsible accounting officer as to whether or not the investments have been in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Regulations and Council’s investment policy.

 

The report will also detail investment income earned compared with budget.

 

(ii)        For audit purposes, certificates must be obtained from the banks/fund managers confirming the amounts of investment held on Council’s behalf at 30th June each year.

 

(e)      VARIATIONS TO POLICY

 

The General Manager or his delegated representative is authorised to approve variations to this policy if the investment is to Council’s advantage.  All such variations to this policy approved by the General Manager or his delegated representative are to be reported to Council as soon as practicable.

 

In respect, to revised legislation or Orders by the Minister for Local Government, the General Manager is authorised to update this Policy to reflect that legislation/order/s, without referral to Council.


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 7/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Suburb Boundaries - Kensington/Kingsford

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0064

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting of 9 October 2001, Council resolved in the following terms:

 

“a)       Council prepare a draft map of changes to suburb boundaries, place the draft on public exhibition and undertake public consultation, in order for the final draft to be referred to the Geographical Names Board for endorsement and gazettal; and

 

b)         The Mayor also write to affected residents detailing the background and history of this matter and disclosing Council’s course of action for redressing this issue.”

 

At its meeting of 27 November 2001, Council adopted a draft map, showing a proposed boundary change between Kensington and Kingsford, for the purpose of placing that draft on public exhibition and inviting submissions from the community.

 

The details of the exhibition involved (exhibition period from 3 December 2001 to 2 February 2002):

 

·          Exhibition of the draft map showing proposed boundaries, exhibition locations being Council’s Administrative Centre (Frances Street), Bowen Library and Randwick Branch Library, inviting submissions from interested persons.

·          Advertising notices placed in local bus shelters and at Kensington Oval

·          Notification to directly affected residents by way of letter/letter box drop advising of exhibition and inviting submissions.

·          Notices advising of the exhibition placed in local newspaper/s, inviting submissions – such notices appearing on 18 December and 8 January 2002.

·          Letters inviting submissions were forwarded to adjoining Councils, the Randwick District Historical Society, Australia Post, Police, Ambulance and Emergency Services, Telstra, the Valuer-General’s Department and the State Electoral Office.

 

This report summarises the responses to the exhibition of the proposed boundary change.

 

ISSUES:

 

More than 60 submissions were received, a number of which were “form” letters from households in the area.  A further group of submissions dealing with other boundary changes were also received.  These have been dealt with separately, and will be the subject of a Mayoral Minute.

 

All submissions received were in favour of the proposed boundary changes.  No submissions were received opposing the proposed changes.  A copy of the draft boundary changes, which are supported by the submissions received, is attached to this report.

 

In summary, the proposed new suburb boundary includes properties on the southern side of Day Avenue from Tunstall Avenue to Cottenham Avenue (being 1 to 25 Day Avenue, Lots 230 to 245 in DP 13208 and from 27 to 37 Day Avenue being Lots 112 to 117 in DP 11570) and those properties on the western side of Cottenham Avenue from Day Avenue to Edward Avenue (between 50 and 80 Cottenham Avenue being Lots 96 to 111 in DP 11570 and Nos 82 Cottenham Avenue, Lot A in DP 411779, 84 Cottenham Avenue, Lot B in DP 411779, 86 Cottenham Avenue, Lot 1 in DP 530077, 88 Cottenham Avenue, Lot 2 in DP 530077, 90 Cottenham Avenue, Lot 135 in DP 177034 and from 92 to 110 Cottenham Avenue being Lots 125-134 in DP 11072.  At the common boundary of 110 and 112 Cottenham Avenue, the suburb boundary crosses Cottenham Avenue to Edward Avenue. (See detail map attached to this report.)

 

As previously advised, following Council’s consideration of all submissions received, and subject to any amendment, the proposed boundary changes must be referred to the Geographical Names Board for consideration.  The Geographical Names Board makes the final decision in respect of any suburb boundary changes.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It will be recalled that generally suburb boundaries were determined by the Geographical Names Board in late 1991/early 1992.  However, it is clear that many residents were not aware of the gazettal of those boundaries.  Further, when a number of addresses were corrected in Council’s database following the issue of a new map from the Board, those residents became aware of the actual boundaries adopted by the Board.

 

Following expressions of concern from residents, Council undertook to propose and exhibit changes to the boundary between Kensington and Kingsford.  Now that the exhibition has been completed, Council needs to determine whether it wishes to recommend those proposed changes to the Geographical Names Board.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council adopt the proposed changes as exhibited, noting that all submissions received were in favour of the proposed changes, and forwards the proposal to the Geographical Names Board for consideration.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Map of proposed boundary change (as exhibited)

 

2.  Detail map showing boundary at Cottenham and Edward Avenues. UNDER SEPARATE COVER. 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 4/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

24 Inman Street, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/738/2001

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT    

 

Council at its Health Building and Planning Committee meeting held on 12 February 2002 resolved:

 

“That this application be deferred for mediation, with advice as to whether or not the parties are prepared to enter into mediation to come before the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 February, 2002. “

 

ISSUES:

 

The applicant has advised that they are not interested in mediation as it is their intention to prepare and submit a revised proposal under a separate development application to Council.

 

By facsimile dated 21 February, the applicant has requested the withdrawal of the application.

 

The applicant has been advised by Council’s Officer to discuss any revised proposal with the adjoining property owners, prior to lodgement of a development application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That there be no further consideration of this application as the development application has been withdrawn.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil   

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 5/2002  

 

 

SUBJECT:

COASTAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW SOUTH WALES DISCUSSION PAPER

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4421

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Coastal Design Guidelines discussion paper has been developed by the Coastal Council of NSW and prepared by the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS), within Planning NSW, in order to raise awareness about urban design principles and how they are relevant to the coastal areas of NSW.  The Guidelines have been designed with reference to the NSW Government’s Coastal Policy 1997 and the NSW Government’s Design Quality initiative into improving the quality of residential flat buildings, 2001. 

 

It is interesting to note that the Guidelines foreshadow the inclusion of the region between Newcastle and Wollongong in the NSW Coastal Policy an action which Council resolved to request of the Minister at the Council meeting 22 May 2001.

 

The Guidelines also complement the Government’s Coastal Protection Package, announced in June 2001 and are designed primarily to assist planners, developers, local government councillors and officers to identify visions and future forms for coastal settlement.

 

The Coastal Design Guidelines discussion paper is currently on exhibition at Council’s customer service centre and the Coastal Council invites comment by 1 March 2002.

 

This report outlines the key features of the Coastal Design Guidelines discussion paper and includes a submission to the Coastal Council of NSW.

 

ISSUES:

 

The need for strategic place based planning has arisen due to adhoc decisions and poor development along the NSW coast and the current inadequacies of planning documentation relating to the NSW coast, for example, the NSW Coastal Policy only comments on built form controls and impacts on the coastal zone. In addition to the above it is estimated that a further 60% increase in population will occur in the NSW coastal zone over the next 25 years, leading to increasing pressure from residential development and tourism.

 

Part 1 of the Guidelines identifies seven settlement types, in order to provide a framework within which urban development along the NSW coast can be analysed and understood.  These settlement types are as follows:

 

·          coastal cities

·          coastal towns

·          inland coastal centres

·          coastal villages

·          new coastal neighbourhoods (residential subdivision)

·          coastal hamlets isolated

·          isolated coastal dwellings

 

The type of development which takes place in the Randwick City area, falls into the new coastal neighbourhood/settlement type.

 

Each settlement type includes a description, and discusses present and future challenges and present and future opportunities.  For each settlement type, desired future character covers issues such as relationship to the environment, coastal foreshore access, urban structure, visual sensitivity, building types and heights.

 

In terms of relationship to the environment, new coastal neighbourhoods/settlements are to preserve and protect areas of natural and ecological value; incorporate wildlife corridors and natural features into green space networks and reserve areas; provide public access to the foreshore; and restrict vegetation clearance.  In terms of urban structure, requirements include providing a street layout and hierarchy that responds to the landform and view corridors, whilst permitting a high level of visual, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular permeability; and to integrate a range of housing types, optimising access to facilities.

 

Part 2 of the Guidelines looks in detail at the physical characteristics of coastal settlements and presents seven coastal design concepts illustrating better practice urban design outcomes.  These coastal design concepts are as follows:

 

·          Determining the settlement footprint and boundary

·          Planning the open space network

·          Optimising the settlement development footprint

·          Designing the coastal edge

·          Designing the street hierarchy

·          Reinforcing a clear urban structure

·          Getting the buildings right

 

COMMENTS:

 

Randwick Council Local Environmental Plan No.17 requires the submission of a master plan for all sites having a site area of greater than 4,000 m2.  Council has received a number of master plan submissions for major sites since the LEP was gazetted in June 2000.  These master plans vary somewhat in their understanding and application of urban design principles.  The guidelines have the significant potential to inform the planning and design of new subdivisions on these types of sites.

 

Council’s most recent involvement in the planning and design of a new coastal settlement/neighbourhood, has been in master planning for the Prince Henry Hospital site.  In addition to the range of matters contained in the Master Plan LEP, which are to be addressed, illustrated and explained by the master plan, Council prepared more detailed guidelines and principles for developing the master plan specifically for the Prince Henry site. These composite guidelines set out preliminary development principles and environmental management standards.  The guidelines specified the need for the master plan to be informed by comprehensive baselines studies, some of which could be in the form of management plans, conservation plans and /or impact statements, and recommended extensive community consultation in the preparation and development of the master plan. The Urban design Advisory Service of Planning NSW also provided extensive comment and input in final design outcomes of the master plan.

 

Despite the comprehensive guidelines and numerous pre-master plan lodgement discussions, it was necessary for numerous variations to the Masterplan to be made by Council. The Masterplan as amended compares favourably with the design guidelines, particularly in terms of the revised street layout, protection of natural and ecological qualities and application of sustainable building practice, such as solar hot water heaters and design for water minimisation. It is considered that the availability of the Coastal Design Guidelines would have considerably assisted the applicant in developing the master plan and Council officers and Councillors in assessing it. 

 

There are number of queries about the application of the Guidelines and suggestions for increased detail in relation to natural heritage, Aboriginal heritage, renewable energy, natural water cycle strategy and community consultation.  These issues are discussed in detail in the attached submission to the Coastal Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Guidelines aim to raise awareness about urban design principles and how they are relevant to the coastal areas of NSW, and to assist planners, developers, local government councillors and officers to identify visions and future forms for coastal settlement.  The provisions of the Guidelines are supported in principle, however there are a number of queries about the application of the Guidelines, which should be clarified prior to their finalisation.

 

Council’s submission to the Coastal Council of NSW will raise the issues and queries outlined in the attached Coastal Guidelines submission document, as it is premature at this time to offer unconditional support for the Guidelines.  The provision of these comments should assist the Coastal Council in review the Guidelines to ensure their useability as a working document.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW Discussion Paper be received and noted.

2.         That the attached submission on the Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW Discussion Paper, be endorsed by Council and forwarded to the Coastal Council of NSW.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Coastal Guidelines submission

2. The Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW Discussion Paper.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TONY WATSON

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ACTING TEAM LEADER STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 

 

………………………………

LORRAINE SIMPSON

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


Attachment 1 – Submission on Coastal Design Guidelines

 

 

Coastal Design Guidelines for NSW

Discussion Paper

 

Submission to Coastal Council of NSW

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Randwick City Council forms a substantial part of Sydney’s eastern suburbs, with a land area of approximately 37 square kilometers and 25 kilometers of coastline forming the eastern boundary.

 

This submission has been prepared in response to the invitation from the Coastal Council of NSW for public submissions and was endorsed by Council at its meeting 26 February 2002. Council welcomes this initiative of Coastal Council and the opportunity to comment.

 

COMMENTS

 

The Guidelines will have positive benefits, in providing a clear set of principles, illustrated by examples, which can be used in the by both applicants and Council in assessing Master plan and rezoning applications, and in the preparation of Development Control Plans.  Council supports the Guidelines which will encourage design of new residential subdivisions which have a good understanding of  urban design principles.  The application of such principles can create neighbourhoods which are sensitive to the coastal environment, with streets and buildings which relate to the features of the site and define a legible, useable and safe network of public open space.

 

However Council has a number of queries about the application of the Guidelines, and suggestions for increased detail in relation to Natural Heritage, Aboriginal Heritage, Renewable Energy, Water sensitive urban design/Natural water cycle strategy and community consultation.

 

Application of the Guidelines

 

All of the Randwick Local Government Area lies within 5.5km of the coast.  It is not clear whether the Coastal Council envisages that the Guidelines would be applied to any residential subdivisions within the Local Government Area, or only to those within say 1km of the coast; or a visual catchment-based approach, similar to that adopted by the REPs for Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River which would cover all areas visible from the water; or a water catchment-based approach which would cover all areas draining directly to the coast.

 

It is also not clear whether the guidelines are to be used at the discretion of Council, or whether their application could become mandatory, if say they were to be incorporated in a State Environmental Planning Policy.

 

Natural heritage management

 

Part 1 of the Guidelines refer to the need to preserve and protect areas of natural and ecological value.  It is suggested that in some cases however, there is a need for a more rigorous definition and management of natural heritage values.  Natural heritage values can encompass ecosystems, biological diversity and geodiversity.  In such cases it is necessary to commission consultant studies, such as flora and fauna surveys so that the natural heritage significance of a site can be properly understood and managed.

 

Buffers to areas of natural significance

 

Several of the master plans which Council has dealt with in recent times have highlighted the need for buffer areas to areas of natural significance. Council has successfully proven the need for buffer areas in the Land and Environment Court  Commonwealth of Australia v Randwick City Council [2001] NSWLEC 79 and considers them worthy of inclusion in the guidelines.

 

Buffer areas means an area of land adjacent to an item or site of natural heritage significance, which are required to be managed in a way that ensures the protection, conservation and enhancement of such items or sites.

 

The objectives of a buffer area are to:

 

(a)        promote the conservation and enhancement of an item or site of natural heritage significance, and

(b)        allow for the adequate and long term mitigation of all existing and likely threatening processes, including but not limited to, those arising from actual or proposed land uses on or adjacent to an item or site of natural heritage significance, and

(c)        protect, conserve and enhance habitat corridors, and

(d)        provide for public access which is consistent with the other objectives of buffer areas and which does not adversely affect items or sites of natural heritage significance.

 

State, commonwealth and international legislation

 

Many areas with natural heritage values are listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, the Endangered Species Protection Act, the Register of the National Estate, or in international legislation, eg- RAMSAR wetlands.  The relevance of such legislation should be mentioned in the Guidelines.

 

Furthermore other items and sites of natural heritage not included above may have great significance at a local level, such as bushland remnants in a predominantly urbanised area, this is also a worthy consideration for the guidelines.

 

 
Aboriginal heritage management

 

Part 1 of the Guidelines refer to the need to protect Aboriginal relics, however if Aboriginal relics are present, there may be a need for a detailed site survey and consultation with the Aboriginal people who have rights and interests in the site, including the Local Aboriginal Land Council, and other community groups and organisations.

 

Renewable energy

 

Part 1 of the Guidelines note the need for housing types to integrate passive solar design principles.  However the Guidelines could also encourage the active use of renewable energy for both dwellings and public infrastructure, such as solar powered lighting to public spaces and solar powered hot water systems.

 

Natural water cycle strategy

 

The Guidelines note that housing types are to minimise water use in new settlements.  These could be taken further to specifically cover natural water cycle design, meaning the application of a wide variety of design and management practices, such as water sensitive urban design and water smart design, that are complementary to the natural water cycle and minimise on site water usage.

 

Gated communities

 

The Guidelines note the importance of providing a street layout that permits a high level of pedestrian, cycle and vehicular permeability, but it may also be worthwhile to specifically mention the need to avoid gated communities.

 

Cycle networks

 

Part 1 of the Guidelines refer to the need for a street layout and hierarchy which permits a high level of visual, pedestrian and cycle permeability.  It may be worthwhile however to detail positive measures to encourage cycling, including off-road cycle paths and safe on-road facilities.

 

Disabled access

 

In response to the State’s aging population, the Guidelines should stress the need for disabled access within the public domain, neighbourhood centres and individual dwellings.

 

Community consultation

 

Council also believes it is vitally important for guidelines to stress the importance of effective community consultation by the development designers prior to the finalisation of design and master plan lodgement.

 

Council believes that early community consultation, conducted by a third party professional on behalf of the applicant, can provide a valuable insight into the salient community issues, which then allows the applicant to specifically include them in the master plan and attempt to ameliorate the concerns into the master plan design prior to lodgement with the consent authority and public exhibition.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The urban design content of the Coastal Design Guidelines is comprehensive and well presented, it is evident that a considerable amount of time has been invested into the preparation of this discussion document.  A number of suggestions have been made however, to assist in ensuring that the natural environment content of the Guidelines is equally comprehensive.  Council has also raised a number of queries in relation to the application of the Guidelines.

 

It is hoped that the provision of these comments will assist the Coastal Council in review the Guidelines to ensure their useability as a working document, and Council thanks the Coastal Council for this opportunity to comment.

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 6/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

707 - 745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction - MAROUBRA MALL SHOPPING COMPLEX

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3507

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT   

 

1.         INTRODUCTION:

 

At its ordinary meeting on 7th August 2001, the Council resolved to adopt a Master Plan for redevelopment of the site of the Maroubra Mall shopping complex at 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

 

The adopted Master Plan sets out the long term strategic direction for redevelopment of the site for retail/commercial and residential purposes.  It describes, amongst other things, the intended building envelopes (general parameters for the height, size, setback and separation of buildings and their arrangement across the site) and the intended quantity of retail floor space.

 

An application has now been received to amend certain aspects of the adopted Master Plan relating to the height and arrangement of the building envelopes and the quantity of retail floor space. 

 

The main issues associated with the building envelopes are the impacts on building bulk, streetscape, town square amenity, quantity/quality of communal open space areas, and solar access to units, open space and surrounding properties.  The changes do not seek to increase the overall density or yield of development on the site. The overall effect of the changes is positive, particularly in terms of improved amenity and legibility for the town square, better proportioned communal open space areas for the residents, and improved solar access, privacy, natural ventilation, view corridors and outlook for the residential units and open space areas. 

 

The main issue associated with the retail floor space is whether the amount proposed is adequate to meet the broad needs of the community served by the town centre, having regard to the realistic future size and function of the centre in its economic context.  The amount of retail floor space proposed is the same as that recommended for approval previously, but which Council in its determination required to be increased.

 

The amendments to the Master Plan are recommended for approval, subject to minor variations (refer to recommendation).

 

2.         PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 

2.1.      Building Envelopes

 

The proposed amendments to the building envelopes are:

 

Buildings A & D

 

Building A shortened in length and replaced in part with an extension of Building D extended out to Bruce Bennetts Place and producing a gap of approximately 8m  between Buildings A and D adjacent to Bruce Bennetts Place.

 

Buildings D, E, F & I

 

Buildings E and F changed from parallel rectangular forms to a continuous curvilinear form wrapping around town square.  Northern section of short leg of Building D deleted.  Building I increased in height from 5 to 9 storeys (18.35m to 30m), doubled in width, and increased in its setback from the western side boundary.

 

Other more minor changes include the addition of small gaps between Buildings B and C and Buildings H and G.

 

2.2.      Retail Floor space

 

The proposed amendment is to reduce the minimum retail/commercial floor space from 19,179sqmGLA to 18,000sqm GFA.

 

3.         PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

The proposed amendments to the Master Plan were advertised and notified to the public in accordance with Randwick Local Environmental Plan - 1998.  Two submissions were received.  The details of these submissions summarised below.

 

S. Day  90 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·    in view of the height and FSR concessions, there should not be any compromise on the requirement for a minimum retail component of 19,179sqm GLA

 

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

·    as buildings A, B and C are on the north side, their height should compensate to allow maximum solar access to the centre of the development;

·    the reconfiguration of the town square into a circular form has merit, although the overall area should be generous to be a focal point for the community and the setback of buildings E and F should be reconsidered to achieve greater light and solar access;

·    Building H will cast shadows over the other side of Maroubra Road and should have a 45 degree taper to reduce the shadow impact;

·    future development of the Police/Centrelink site would need a significant contribution to public area/town square amenity, and this should be allowed for now within the town square rather than split in a latter development proposal;

·    it has not been demonstrated that the design and shape of the building will mitigate the impacts of street and traffic noise on the residential units;

·    one of the major concerns of local residents is the reduction in retail content of the Maroubra Junction town centre;

·    there can be no argument for a reduction in the minimum retail area when there will be a massive increase in residential living units in the area.

 

Aspects related to the reconfiguration of the town square and Buildings E and F around the town square are discussed in section 4.2 below.  The heights of Buildings A, B C and H have already been resolved under the adopted Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan amendments do not change those heights.  The area of the town square (minimum 920sqm)  is considered to be adequate to accommodate a range of activities and provide a suitable focal point for the town centre.  Contributions from the Police/Centrelink site can not be determined prior to a redevelopment proposal for that site.  The issue of the appropriate minimum area of retail is discussed in section 4.3 below.

 

4.         ASSESSMENT

 

4.1.       Buildings A & D

 

The provision of a gap between Buildings A and D, adds a discernible break in the built form along Bruce Bennetts Place which has benefits of reducing the perceived bulk and intensity of the development in the streetscape, and opening up view corridors and natural light and ventilation for the proposed residential units and common open space areas and for the future residential building to the west on the opposite side of Bruce Bennetts Place.

 

The height of the proposed extension to Building D out towards Bruce Bennetts Place has the potential for adverse impacts on the streetscape and the adjoining property to the south in terms of both overshadowing and physical scale and bulk.  In the master plan adopted by Council, Building A, adjacent to Bruce Bennetts Place, is to be 8 storeys (27m above ground), and Building D, setback behind Building A from Bruce Bennetts Place, is to be 10 storeys (33m above ground). The part of Building D that is now proposed to extend out to Bruce Bennetts Place, in place of the deleted section of Building A, is to be 9 storeys (30m above ground).  The result is an increase in height from 8 to 9 storeys in the corner of the site adjacent to Bruce Bennetts Place and Piccadilly Place. 

 

The additional height is greater than that of the building approved for construction on the opposite side of Bruce Bennetts Place (8-9 storeys and 23-25m height above ground).  The height is also inconsistent with the heights recommended under Council’s draft DCP for Maroubra Junction (6 storeys is recommended in the latest version – January 2001).

 

The additional height will increase the extent of overshadowing on the police/centre link site to the south, including that part of the site that is likely to become open space under a future redevelopment scheme consistent with the ‘perimeter block’ built form sought in Council’s draft DCP.  The building heights under the adopted Master Plan will result in significant shadow impacts on the police/centrelink site. There should be no increase in shadow impacts, particularly where it may compromise the achievement of a reasonable level of solar access for future redevelopment on the police/centrelink site. The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate solar access can still be achieved on that site.

For these reasons, the extended section of Building D should be no greater than 8 storeys (27m above ground), consistent with the heights under the adopted Master Plan.

 

4.2.       Buildings D, E, F & I

 

The deletion of the north section of short leg of Building D is a significant improvement to the overall layout.  It opens up what were previously a fairly enclosed spaces between surrounded by tall buildings (Buildings A, B, C and D).  It reduces the perceived density and crowding of built form and provides better spatial amenity, solar access, natural ventilation, view corridors and outlook for both the residential units and the communal open space between the buildings.

 

The realignment of Buildings E and F to wrap around the town square in a continuous curved form has the following benefits for the town square:

 

·    it creates a stronger visual form that increases the legibility of the town square and its identification as a distinctive focal point for activity within the town centre;

·    it provides more enclosure to the town square creating a more positive, inviting space and better protection from the impacts of traffic noise and pollution on Anzac Parade; and

·    the northern and southern edges extend slightly further out, increasing solar access.

 

The realignment of Building F has the further benefit of opening up what was previously a fairly enclosed space between buildings F, G, H and I.  Similar to the effect of changing Building D, it reduces the perceived density and crowding of built form and provides better spatial amenity, solar access, natural ventilation, view corridors and outlook for both the residential units and the communal open space between the buildings. So too, the addition of small gaps between Buildings B and C and Buildings H and G has benefits for the amenity of the development for future residents.

 

Potential problems associated with the new curved form of Buildings E and F include:

 

·    the extent of enclosure of the town square and whether it will result in a degree of separation from Anzac Parade that inhibits access and ‘street life’;

·    the height and bulk of the buildings wrapping around the town square and the extent of physical domination they might have over the space;

·    the ‘cutting-off’ of the former axis formed by Piccadilly Plc and Green St on the other side of Anzac Parade, and the position of the change in height from Building E to F; and

·    the presentation of the outer edge of a curved building form to communal open space areas to the rear and the effect of this in creating negative ‘left-over’ spaces which are not comfortable or inviting.

 

Enclosure

 

The degree of enclosure of the town square can affect the ultimate success of the square as an active public domain that is accessible and integrated with the street environment.  The proposed curved alignment of buildings around the town square should maintain adequate accessibility and integration with the street, whilst still providing a degree of protection from the elements, particularly traffic noise on Anzac Parade.  The proposed town square incorporates a 25m separation between Buildings E and F adjacent to Anzac Parade.  The separation at ground level (town square level) would be greater than 25m as the building facades are to be setback behind a colonnade of at least 3m depth and truncated at the corners adjacent to Anzac Parade. The detailed design of features within the town square would still be required to comply with the following principles of the adopted Master Plan formulated to ensure its accessibility and integration with the street environment:

 

“Kiosks, landscaping or other built elements may only be located at the entry to the town square if limited in size and designed to ensure that the town square remains highly accessible to pedestrians, inviting to the general public, and with an open appearance that promotes casual surveillance from the street.

 

The town square is to be level with the pedestrian path in Anzac Parade at the frontage and any changes in level into the site are limited so as to maintain the square’s accessibility and visibility from the street and allow for disabled access.”

 

Height and Bulk

 

The heights of Buildings E and F are generally the same as those in the adopted Master Plan.  The critical difference is that the buildings are now proposed to wrap around the back of the town centre, instead of leaving a large gap above podium level with views through to the inner part of the site.

 

Building F will present a 7 storey building as the main backdrop to the town square. Building E, on the northern side, will be lower at 5 storeys to maintain solar access to the town square. The significant size of the town square (at least 920sqm clear of colonnades) will help to balance the impact of building heights around it.  The buildings will in fact be no higher than the width/depth of the town square which is widely accepted as a ‘comfortable’ relationship in scale.  The next important determinant of whether or not the buildings will physically dominate the town square is the design and treatment of the facades.  The tall height of the ground level facade (approx 5m) and the colonnade will tend to focus perceptions at ground level once entering the town square.  If the colonnade and shop fronts at ground level are sufficiently active and interesting, the focus at ground level will be strengthened. Articulation of the building facades above ground level (through balconies, recesses, and clever use of materials and colours) can further reduce the perception of building bulk above ground level.  These aspects are already addressed by the following principle of the adopted Master Plan:

 

“The facades of buildings bordering the town square are to be designed to focus visual interest at ground level and to reduce perceived building bulk and avoid physical domination over the town square.”

 

The curved form appears to provide slightly better solar access along the southern edge of the town square, where the edge extends slightly further south than in the adopted scheme.

 

Axis and Link to Green Street

 

A recommendation of the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) in preparing the draft Development Control Plan for Maroubra Town Centre was that built form on the Maroubra Mall site reinforce the former axis of Piccadilly Place through the site and create a link between the proposed town square and Green Street on the other side of Anzac Parade.  To this end, the shape of the town square and the buildings around it should achieve a visual connection with Green Street.

 

Under the adopted Master Plan, Building F lining the southern side of the Town Square and Building D visible beyond the town square were in parallel alignment with the former axis of Piccadilly Place and provided a strong visual link to Green Street. 

 

In respect of the proposed amendments, concerns were initially raised by UDAS that the proposed curved shape of the town square and the somewhat arbitrary positioning of the junction between Buildings E and F failed to reinforce the axis and link to Green Street.  The proposal was subsequently revised so that the junction between Buildings E and F is positioned to continue the alignment of Building D beyond the town square, parallel to the axis of Piccadilly Place/Green Street, and achieving a suitable visual link to Green Street.

 

Outer Edge

 

UDAS also raised concerns about the relationship between the outer edge of the proposed curved buildings and the adjacent open spaces within the site.  UDAS holds the view that spaces located on the outside of the curved built forms become ‘negative’ or ‘left-over’ spaces which are not comfortable or inviting for users.  The spaces in this case are intended to be the common open space areas for residents of the proposed development. 

 

Whilst it may be that as a general design rule it is difficult to achieve positive, well defined spaces adjacent to the outer edge of a curved building, much can be done through detailed façade design and landscaping to improve the spatial definition, comfort and sense of place.  The proposed amendments include the option of a curved or straight edged form to the sides of Buildings E and F facing the internal open spaces.  To accommodate the option for a curved form, a principle should be added to the Master Plan to the effect that a curved form will only be possible where it is demonstrated at a future development consent stage that detailed façade and landscape design will work to create positive, well defined spaces that give a sense of being ‘inside’ a comfortable outdoor area, purpose-built for the relaxation and recreation of residents and their guests.

 

Impacts of Building I

 

The amendments involve increasing the height of Building I from 5 storeys to 9 storeys, doubling its width, and increasing its setback from the western side boundary of the site from 3m (above the podium) to 9m.  The increases to the size of Building I are essentially to compensate for loss of floor space associated with the amendments to Buildings A & D. 

 

The main issue associated with the increased size of Building I is its potential impact on the adjoining Police/Centrelink site to the west. 

 

Shadow diagrams indicate that there is not likely to be any significant increase in overshadowing of the Police/Centrelink site beyond that which would occur under the adopted Master Plan. 

 

In terms of visible bulk, Building I is sufficiently setback from the boundary (9m) as to not be too overbearing or dominating to future development on the Police/Centrelink site.  Given the perimeter block form of development envisaged under the draft Maroubra Junction DCP and the proposed placement of buildings on the Maroubra Mall site, the most logical form of future development on the Police/Centrelink site is one involving an L-shape building built up to Maroubra Road and Bruce Bennets Place, with the north-eastern corner left as open space, adjacent to Building I.  Based on building widths of up to 18m, an open space area in the north-east corner of the Police/Centrelink site would have dimensions of about 30mx40m (total area about 1200sqm).  Adding to this the 9m setback to Building I, the spacing between the buildings on the Police/Centrelink site and Building I would be substantial and in proportion with a building up to 9 storeys (30m).

 

Whilst the increased width and height of Building I may reduce solar access to certain parts of the open space areas, the combined affect of the amendments achieves an overall improvement to solar access to open space areas.

 

The increased width and height of Building I may reduce solar access certain units within Building H.  However, the adopted Master Plan includes the following principle that:

 

The living/dining areas of at least 75% of units are to receive a minimum of 2.5hrs of sunlight between 8.30am and 3.30pm mid-winter.”

 

The applicant has submitted an analysis of solar access to the proposed units based on a notional modular arrangement of units.  The analysis shows 78% of units receiving in excess of 2.5hrs of solar access between 8.30am and 3.30pm mid-winter.  The analysis indicates that the principle can still be met.  However the notional modular arrangement appears to include double-loaded unit arrangements (i.e. units located on the north side or the south side of the building, either side of a central corridor) in Buildings B, C and D, which were shown notionally under the previous scheme to be wholly cross-over units.  Cross-over units are preferable as they optimise natural through ventilation, solar access and outlook.  The applicant has indicated the intention to provide:

B Block – all units as cross-over

C Block – some units as north-side only; some units as cross-over

D Block – some units as north-side or south-side only; some units as cross-over

 

A principle should be added to the Master Plan to require at least one-third of the units to be in a cross-over or similar arrangement that provides for natural through ventilation from opening/s on one side of the building to opening/s on another side of the building (including two sides of a corner of the building).

 

4.3.       Retail Floor space

 

The proposed amendment is to reduce the minimum retail/commercial floor space from 19,179sqm GLA to 18,000sqm GFA.

 

As put forward in the previous recommendation to Council on the adopted Master Plan, 18,000sqm GFA of retail floor space is an acceptable minimum for the site.  This equates to a floor space ratio for the site of 1:1 which can readily be accommodated on the site in a principal ground level, plus part of a second level (preferably oriented to Anzac Parade and the town square) to make up for any floor space lost at ground level for vehicle access.  The commercial study of Maroubra town centre undertaken for the Council by Leyshon Consulting recommended the requirement to provide ground level retail/commercial floor space at an FSR of 1:1 within the defined core area (of which Maroubra Mall is the key site), and at a reduced FSR of 0.5:1 outside the core area.  The proposal for a minimum of 18,000sqm GFA is in accordance with the Leyshon recommendations. 

 

The proposal maintains provision for a single major retail tenancy of at least 3,000sqm lettable area able to accommodate a full-line supermarket, which is a cornerstone for the future success of Maroubra Junction as a district level town centre serving community needs.

 

The proposal also maintains the option to provide up to 26,000sqm of retail/commercial floorspace should the market demand arise. 

 

The applicant considers 18,000sqm of retail/commercial floorspace to be viable having regard to the foreseeable demand.  A requirement to provide more floorspace than is realistically viable could unnecessarily hinder the timely redevelopment of the site.

 

The ability of the town centre to meets the community’s needs is not dependent on the precise quantum of floorspace provided, but rather the provision of a range of modern and convenient facilities targeted to community preferences.  These aspects can be assessed in more detail at the future development application stage, with social impact assessment addressing targeting of retail to community needs, and urban design solutions for access, safety and security, and aesthetic amenity.

 

5.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed amendments to the Master Plan, subject to the minor revisions principles outlined above, satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and are suitable for adoption. 

 

Subject to lowering the height of the western end of D Block by a single storey, detailed design creating positive, well-defined outdoor spaces behind the curved form of Buildings E and F, and achieving at least one-third of units in a cross-over or similar arrangement, the proposed changes to the building heights and envelopes are generally acceptable. The changes do not seek to increase the overall density or yield of development on the site. The overall effect of the changes is positive, particularly in terms of improved amenity and legibility for the town square, better proportioned communal open space areas for the residents, and improved solar access, privacy, natural ventilation, view corridors and outlook for the residential units and open space areas. 

 

The proposed reduction in the minimum retail/commercial floorspace is in accordance with the recommendations of the Leyshon commercial study of Maroubra Town Centre, and should, with suitable development design and targeting of retail types, meet the broad needs of the community served by Maroubra Town Centre.

 

The proposed amendments are recommended for adoption, subject to certain variations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That the Council adopt the following amendments to the Master Plan for 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction:

 

i.    amendments to the building heights and envelopes as shown on the Building Heights and Envelopes diagram number CN-SK2 rev E, dated 21.2.02 (copy attached)

      Note: this diagram replaces figure 19 of the Master Plan document.

 

ii.    reduction in the minimum retail/commercial floorspace from 19,179sqm GLA to 18,000sqm GFA;

 

subject to the following variations:

 

1.   The western end of Building D adjacent to Bruce Bennetts Place is to be no greater than 8 storeys (27m above ground), consistent with the height of Building A in that location under the previously adopted Master Plan.

 

2.   A curved form to the sides of Buildings E and F facing the residential open space areas is subject to further assessment at the future development consent stage and will only be allowed where it is demonstrated to Council’s satisfaction that detailed façade and landscape design will work to create positive, well defined spaces that give a sense of being ‘inside’ a comfortable outdoor area, purpose-built for the relaxation and recreation of residents and their guests.

 

3.   At least one-third of the residential units are to be in a cross-over or other similar arrangement which provides for natural through ventilation from opening/s on one side of the building to opening/s on another side of the building (including the two sides of a corner of the building).

 

For consistency with the amendments adopted above, the variations in the Master Plan adopted by Council on 7 August 2001, are to be revised as follows:

 

“3.2     Public Amenity Principles

 

1.         The town square is to be at least 920sqm in area clear of the colonnades and the line of the buildings surrounding it.  It is to have a minimum dimension of 25m between the outer edges of the buildings adjacent to Anzac Parade.

 

3.3       Built Form Principles

 

10.     replace with:

 

The western end of Building D adjacent to Bruce Bennetts Place, for the depth of Building A, is to be reduced to 8 storeys (27m above ground).

 

11.     delete (encompassed in new Buildings Heights and Envelopes diagram)

 

12.     delete (encompassed in new Buildings Heights and Envelopes diagram)

Add the following principle:

 

The incorporation of a curved form to the sides of Buildings E and F facing the residential open space areas will involve detailed façade and landscape design that creates positive, well defined spaces, which give a sense of being ‘inside’ a comfortable outdoor area, purpose-built for the relaxation and recreation of residents and their guests.

 

3.4       Floor Area and Mix Principles

 

17.       The minimum retail/commercial floor space is to be 18,000sqm GFA including the Town Square and colonnades.

 

3.5       Environmental Design Principles

 

Add the following principles:

 

Natural Ventilation and Cross Ventilation

At least one-third of the residential units are to be in a cross-over or other similar arrangement which provides for natural through ventilation from opening/s on one side of the building to opening/s on another side of the building (including the two sides of a corner of the building).

 

Noise and Wind Effects

The final resolution of the building design will take into account the findings of wind and noise studies with a view reducing adverse impacts on the site and the surrounding area.”

 

B.        That the applicant is to provide a revised Master Plan document incorporating the variations listed above, as well as the variations listed in the Master Plan adopted by Council on 7 August 2001 that remain applicable and are not superseded by the variations listed above. The revised Master Plan document is to be submitted to the Council prior to or simultaneous with the lodgement of any development application. The revised document will include new and reworded principles, revised diagrams, and a reworked development concept (section 4.0 and 5.0 of the Master Plan).  A new figure 19 based on the Building Heights and Envelopes diagram referred to in this approval is to be included in the revised Master Plan document as the principal site plan, drawn to a scale of 1:1000.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plan (Building Heights and Envelopes Diagram No. CN-SK2 rev E, dated 21.2.02

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PAULA MORETTI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 7/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

7 DUNCAN STREET, MAROUBRA   

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1180/2001

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for DA 1180/2001 for 7 Duncan Street,  Maroubra for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 13 February 2002

2.  A4 PLANS 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

13 February, 2002

FILE NO:

1180/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a balcony on the first floor at the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling

PROPERTY:

 7 Duncan Street, Maroubra.

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 T Flynn

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council Committee meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Dominic Sullivan, Chris Bastic and Anthony Andrews.  The estimated cost of the works are $5 000.

 

The proposal is for the construction of a new balcony on the first floor at the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling.  The balcony is proposed to be 4.2m wide and 2m deep and is located off the rear television room. 

 

The proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners and three submissions were received raising concerns about privacy, the aesthetic appearance of the balcony and devaluation of property values. 

 

The proposed dimensions of the balcony will result in adverse privacy impacts to adjoining properties.  In order to minimise privacy impacts, it is recommended that the balcony be reduced to a maximum depth of 1.5m and setback 1m from both the northern and southern sides of the dwelling to permit a maximum width of 2.2m.  The amended depth and width will still permit the rear balcony to be utilised by the occupants of the dwelling, while minimising impacts upon the adjoining properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to a condition to reduce the depth and width of the balcony.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the construction of a new balcony on the first floor at the rear of the existing semi- detached dwelling.  The proposed balcony is 4.2m in width and 2m in depth with access located off the rear T.V room.  It is proposed to install 1.8m high translucent glass privacy screens to the southern and northern ends of the balcony.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Duncan Street and has a width of 5.45m, a depth of 38.6m and a total site area of 210.4m2.  The locality is residential in nature and is characterised by single and two storey semi – detached and freestanding dwellings.

 

The subject dwelling forms half of a pair of semi detached dwellings and contains three bedrooms.  The site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

On 28 August 2001, Council refused development consent for the construction of a recessed balcony within the roof (DA 688/2001).  The balcony was proposed to be located at the rear of the semi-detached dwelling and accessed off the T.V room.  The proposed balcony had an area of 16.8m2 with dimensions of 4.2m x 4.0m.   

 

The development application was refused under delegated authority for the following reasons:

 

1          The proposed balcony to the rear upper level of the dwelling will not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will have a significant adverse impact upon the existing levels of privacy to the outdoor living areas of the adjoining premises.

 

2          Approval of the proposed balcony would not be in the public interest and set a poor precedent for residential amenity.

 

The applicant subsequently submitted a Section 82 A Review of determination that was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination on the 13 November 2001.  The Health, Building and Planning Committee confirmed the original decision.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Mr Kyriakos and Mrs E Fotopoulos – 3 Duncan Street, Maroubra.

 

·          The balcony would greatly limit their privacy in their backyard and the balcony would directly overlook their rear yard. 

·          Would be constantly watched should any occupants of 7 Duncan Street be on the proposed balcony.

·          Concerned about impacts upon the areas commercial values as the balcony construction might be considered an ‘eyesore’ if not constructed to fit in line with the design of the existing premises.  Proposal would greatly diminish the value of their property. 

 

Miss G Fotopoulos – 5 Duncan Street

 

·          The balcony would greatly limit the privacy of their backyard, as it is relatively small and compact.

·          Asserts that the balcony would directly overlook their environs and restrict movements as far as privacy issues are concerned.

·          Would be constantly watched should occupants of 7 Duncan Street be glancing out of the balcony.

·          Proposal may effect their property’s commercial value as the balcony may be considered an ‘eyesore’.

·          Advises that they do not want a balcony overlooking their backyard whatever size or form.

 

 

 

 

Mr C Fotopolous – 3 Duncan Street, Maroubra.

 

·          The balcony would greatly restrict their privacy in their backyard and would directly overlook their backyard and restrict their movements when using the backyard. 

·          Would feel like they are under constant surveillance should the occupants use their balcony. 

·          Concerned that that the balcony may effect the area’s commercial values as the balcony may be considered an ‘eyesore’. 

·          States that they do not want a balcony overlooking their backyard.

 

5.2  Support

 

No letters of support were received during the notification period.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals required.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the proposed development has a site area less then 4000m2

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

·    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·    Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Complies via a condition of consent

 

Under the provisions of Clause 29 of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998, Council may only grant consent after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The proposed development as submitted with a 2m metre deep balcony proposes a 1.8m high privacy screens to the southern and northern ends of the proposed balcony.  The proposed privacy screens add bulk to the rear of the existing upper floor.  With the recommended condition to reduce the width and depth of the balcony, building bulk will be reduced and it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the aesthetic qualities of the foreshore.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.1     Local Environmental Planning Instrument's and State of Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

 

The proposal is permissible in the Residential 2A zone, and complies with the objectives and provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

9.2     Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  The relevant sections of the DCP are discussed in detail below. 

 

9.2.1 Visual and Acoustic Privacy

                                                          

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The performance requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

The proposed 2m x 4.2m balcony to the rear of the upper floor of the semi-detached dwelling will have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises as the balcony will result in an unreasonable degree of overlooking of the adjoining rear yards.  The potential for overlooking is exacerbated by the fact that the proposed balcony is located directly off a T.V. room, which is a primary use area.  Furthermore, given the proposed size of the balcony there is also potential for a sizable table and chairs making the deck conducive to entertainment and recreational use. The current design of the balcony does not include adequate measures to minimise overlooking impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

In order to minimise impacts to adjoining properties, it is recommended that the size of the balcony be reduced in depth to 1.5m and be setback 1m from both the northern and southern sides of the building, resulting in a maximum width of 2.2m.  The reduced size of the balcony and provision of privacy screens will still allow it to be utilised by the occupants and will minimise overlooking of the adjoining properties to an acceptable level.  The recommended size of the balcony will also ensure that the balcony is not able to be used as a larger entertainment area.  It is noted that the recommended reduced width will require the proposed sliding glass door to be relocated centrally in the rear wall of the upper level.  A suitable condition is included in the recommendation. 

 

It is considered that with the recommended condition of consent the proposed development will meet the performance requirements of the DCP in relation to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

9.2.2 Solar Access

 

The overall objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction, the use of appropriate resources, encourage the use of passive solar design, and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

As a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve an energy efficiency, NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

The preferred solutions of the DCP include that private open spaces, outdoor recreation areas and north facing windows to the subject and adjoining premises receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm during the winter equinox. If less than the preferred solution is currently available access to sunlight should not be reduced.

 

A NAThers Certificate is not required as the proposal is not for a new dwelling.  Shadow diagrams have not been requested for the development, as it is considered that due to the design of the balcony and use of translucent glass privacy screens to the balcony ends, the proposed development will generally not reduce access to sunlight received by the adjoining north facing windows or the principal outdoor recreation space of the adjoining dwellings.

 

9.3       Issues raised in Submission

 

The privacy concerns raised in the submissions to the application are considered to be valid.  As detailed above, in order to minimise overlooking impacts upon adjoining properties, it is recommended that the balcony be reduced to an acceptable depth and width.  The recommended greater setbacks from the rear of the dwelling and sides of the upper floor recess the balcony into the roof area and ensure that the area is not conducive for entertainment and recreational use.   The reduction in the size of the balcony also assists in reducing the bulk and scale of the balcony. 

 

In regard to the comments relating to the potential decrease in property values, with the recommended condition the proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and will not adversely impact upon the privacy of adjoining properties.  Furthermore, the objector has not substantiated the claim that devaluation will occur.   

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The assessment of the application indicates that with the imposition of the recommended condition to reduce the size of the balcony, the proposed development generally satisfies the relevant assessment criteria.  The privacy impacts raised in submissions would be effectively mitigated by the reduction in the size of the balcony

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions of consent to mitigate potential impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining property owners.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1180/2002 for Construction of a balcony on the first floor at the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling at 7 Duncan Street, Maroubra. subject to the following conditions:-

                                               

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans unnumbered and drawn by P. Banfield, dated 3.8.2001 and received by Council on 12 December 2001, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2.         The upper floor rear balcony shall be reduced to a maximum depth of 1.5m.  The balcony shall also be reduced in width by 1m from both the currently proposed northern and southern edges to reduce the width to a maximum of 2.2m and the sliding glass door shall be relocated centrally in the rear wall at the upper level to access the balcony.  Translucent glass privacy screens shall be incorporated on both the northern and southern ends of the balcony to a height of 1.8m.   This condition has been imposed to ensure that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Details of the amended balcony design are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development

 

3.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

4.         There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

5.         Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment prior to commencement of works.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

6.         All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

7.         In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·          has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·          is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $3,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

8          All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

9.         Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10.       Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

11.       A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

12.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

13.       Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

14.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations

 

15.       Noise emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority, except as may be amended by the conditions of this approval.

 

16.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions at all times.

 

17.       Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

18.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 8/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

82 ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0003/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for DA 0003/02 for 82 Alison Road, RANDWICK for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 18 February 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

18 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0003/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Allocate common area at the rear of the existing multi-unit housing development for the exclusive use of unit 4

PROPERTY:

 82 Alison Road, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Maureen Norbury

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council meeting as the applicant is an employee of Randwick City Council.

 

The applicant proposes to transfer a portion of outdoor common area at first floor level of the existing strata titled residential flat development, to become part of the outdoor area of unit number 4. The outdoor area is currently accessed via a stair along the southern side of the property and is located directly behind unit number 4. The adjoining unit at first floor level currently enjoys exclusive use of the patio area adjacent to the subject common area. Due to the location and of the close proximity of the subject common areas to unit 4, it is unlikely that this area would be used by the other occupants of the building.. There is sufficient common space and outdoors recreation area at ground level for the remaining ground level units should the portion be transferred.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to transfer a portion of the outdoor common area, approx 5.5m x 3.8m at first floor level to form part of the unit entitlements of unit number 4.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Alison Road, Randwick and is occupied by an existing 3 storey residential flat building. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, having a frontage of 15.24m, depth of 40.76m and a total site area of 567.07m2. Adjoining the site to the north and south are an existing dwelling house and a residential flat building respectively.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

BA 96/78       -           Alterations and additions. Refused

SS 28/81       -           Strata subdivide existing building. Approved

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal relates to reallocating unit entitlements of the strata building, the development is considered to be minor and in this regard no notification is required in accordance with the provisions of clause 23 of RLEP 1998.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

No objections are generally seen to the application, subject to conditions

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

N/A

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

N/A

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

N/A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Across road from  Royal Randwick Race Course

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

9.1     Site Suitability

 

The subject common area is currently accessed by unit 4 at the rear of the existing residential flat building. The adjoining unit to the immediate south has an existing adjacent private roof terrace. There is no other purpose for the ground floor units to use the subject open space on the first floor terrace because of its location and design, and there is sufficient open space at ground level to provide adequate outdoor area for these units.

 

The DCP for Multi-unit housing encourages open space for each dwelling “in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden accessible within the dwelling”. There is currently no balcony attached to unit number 4, and the subject outdoor area extends from the existing kitchen at the rear of the unit. No objections are generally raised to the allocation of the rear terrace to unit no 4.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 0003/2002 for the allocation of common area at the rear of the existing residential flat building for the exclusive use of unit number 4 at 82 Alison Road, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans unnumbered consisting of 4 sheets, undated and received by Council on 02 January 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

SUBDIVISION:   

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

2.           A formal strata subdivision application is to be approved by the Principal Certifying authority reflecting the approved amendments to the strata plan.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

The applicant is advised that a Notice of Intention to serve an Order under the provisions of Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 will be forwarded to the owner of the building under separate cover, in respect to fire safety upgrading provisions in the building.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reductions

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 





 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 9/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

25 French Street, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1103/2001

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for DA 1103/2001  for 25 French Street, MAROUBRA for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 11 February 2002

2.  A4 Plans

3.  Development Application Report 808/1998 dated 14 September 1998 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART  

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

21 February, 2002

FILE NO:

1103/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Carport and storeroom forward of the building line including a new portico, front and side fencing, retaining walls and front patio

PROPERTY:

 25 French Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 T McGrath

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council Meeting as the applicant is an employee of Randwick City Council.  The estimated cost of the works are $30 000.

 

The proposal is for a carport and storeroom in front of the existing dwelling, which will be two storeys in height.   It is also proposed to construct new front and side boundary fencing and retaining walls, and terrace and lower the front yard level to create a paved front patio. 

 

On 10 November 1998, development application 808/98 was part approved/part refused under delegated authority.  Approval was granted for the first floor addition, and the double carport forward of the building line was refused.   The applicant subsequently submitted a Section 82 Review of Determination for the refusal of the carport, which was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee.  On April 1999, the Health, Planning and Building Committee approved the Section 82 A Review to permit the carport.  The approved structure was similarly sized and located to the current application. 

 

This proposal aims to alter the appearance of the previously approved carport by incorporating rendered masonry pillars and balustrade to the carport structure and attaching a portico to the north – western corner of the carport. As detailed in the body of the report, the height of the structure has also been increased to comply with required design alignment levels. 

 

The proposed development was notified to adjoining property owners and three (3) submissions were received raising concerns about excessive bulk and scale, overshadowing, overlooking and the adverse impact that the structure will have in the streetscape. 

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Development Control Plan (DCP) Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. There are concerns regarding additional impacts from the increased height of the structure and additional bulk of the altered appearance of the carport in the streetscape and on adjoining properties. Consequently, it is recommended that the proposed height of the structure be reduced to the height of that previously approved, the proposed portico roof be deleted and the solid balustrade to the side and rear of the carport slab be replaced with open balustrade.  

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions to minimise the impacts of the structure in the streetscape and upon adjoining properties.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development comprises the following:

 

·          At street level it is proposed to construct a carport with a storeroom located in the under croft area (carport slab support walls).  It is proposed to construct double doors at the rear to access the storeroom and a window to the southern elevation.

·          Alter the appearance of the previously approved carport by introducing rendered masonry support pillars and balustrade to the carport structure and attached portico to the north-western corner of the carport. 

·          Construct front and side boundary masonry fencing and retaining walls.  It is also intended to terrace and lower the front yard level to create a front yard area.  Utilising retaining walls a level front patio can be attained.

·          Increase in height of the carport slab from RL 14.20 to RL 14.55, a difference of 350mm. Note (original approval required a design alignment level of 370mm below the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb.  The alignment level results in a carport slab RL 14.55).

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment located on the eastern side of French Street.  The site has a frontage of 9.225m, a depth of 48.175m, a total site area of 417.3m2 and slopes steeply downwards from the front to the rear.  The area is characterised by single and two storey semi-detached and detached dwelling house.  Currently existing on the site is a two-storey brick and tile semi detached dwelling.  Immediately to the south is the single storey adjoining half of the building, No. 25a and to north lies a single storey dwelling. 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 10 November 1998, DA 98/808 was part approved and part refused under delegated authority.  Approval was granted for the first floor addition, while the proposed double carport in front of the building line was refused due to the significant non-compliance with the relevant DCP. 

 

The applicant subsequently submitted a Section 82A Review to the refusal of the carport.  The review was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination.  The Council Officer’s report recommended that the refusal be confirmed, however, the carport was approved by the Health, Building and Planning Committee on 6 April 1999.  A condition was imposed that no part of the structure is to be erected within 2000mm of the southern boundary.  

 

On 30 April 1999, a Section 96 application was approved on the site for a minor increase in floor area to the front of the first floor addition to create two wardrobes and enlarge a bathroom window to the rear elevation at first floor level. 

 

On 24 May 1999, Construction Certificate No. 99/335 was issued by Council for the proposed development including the carport. 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

5.1  Objections

 

Mrs J Armstrong – 25A French Street, Maroubra

 

·          Loss of sunlight to front property from the height, bulk and scale of the development. 

·          Incompatibility with adjoining site as 25 and 25A are semi –detached dwellings. 

·          Overdevelopment of the site and will devalue the adjoining properties. 

·          Extensive excavation will effect vegetation and drainage of their property as it is proposed to excavate 1.5m below their existing boundary for the intended patio. 

·          Questions why Council has approved the removal of trees in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order within the subject property . Also questions where replacement trees will be planted and who will ‘police’ compliance with the requirement for replacement trees. 

·          The proposed banked turf on Council’s land on both sides of the driveway is over Council’s allowable slope for mowing.

·          Advises that the current side fences forward of the building line are new, in good condition and built at their expense.  The original plan was approved with a condition requiring that the carport be sited 2m from No.25A and 1m from No. 23.  The new plan depicts a masonry fence and portico to fill those spaces. 

·          The portico encroaches onto Council land at the front, in direct contradiction to Condition 23 of the previously approval.  Also, the levels contradict condition 26 of the previous condition. 

·          The height of the pillars adjacent to no. 25A and no. 23 are 2.51m, which is greater, then Council’s requirements for height of boundary fences. 

·          Restrictions should be placed on the colour of such an obtrusive structure.

 

Mr and Mrs Bowen – 23 French Street, Maroubra

 

·          Support the objection submitted by Jennifer Armstrong from 25A French Street, Maroubra. 

 

Tony Moody – Town Planner (on behalf on  J Armstrong – 25A French Street, Maroubra).

 

·          The proposed carport and store is a significant structure within the front setback area and will take up a substantial portion of the front landscaped garden area.

·          The adjoining properties are characterised by landscaped gardens and the structure is incompatible in a garden setting and even where Council has approved other carports they are much less bulky and much lower than the current proposal.  Further, they are located on standard sized lots where the carports do not take up a significant portion of the front setback whereas this proposal will dominate the front setback area.

·          The cumulative visual impact of the carport, store, retaining walls and front fences will be excessive. In particular, 25A French Street will be dominated by the proposed structure.

·          Part of the column and front fence appears to be erected upon beyond the front property boundary.

·          When compared to the previously approved structure, the proposed structure is significantly taller and larger then the previously approved carport.  Overall, the applicant cannot justify approval of this application based on the past approval for such a modest structure.

·          The proposal will result in adverse overlooking, overshadowing, bulk and scale to no. 25 A French Street.  No 25 A French Street house and yard are generally located much lower in natural levels then the proposed structure and the view from no. 25A French Street will be dominated by the proposed structure.

 

Support

 

No letters of support for the proposal were received during the notification period.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1  Engineering Issues

 

Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Department have recommended fifteen (15) conditions and one (1) Advisory condition should the application be approved.  In regard to the alignment levels, the following comments have been provided:

 

“The applicant was requested by the Assessment Department to provide a driveway profile with the carport slab at 14.20.  The applicant submitted the requested additional detail.  The additional detail was referred to Council’s Asset and Infrastructure for assessment and the following comments have been provided:

 

The amendment relates to the proposed carport slab level, which has been lowered from RL 14.55 to RL 14.20 as requested by Council’s Planning Department.

 

A longitudinal section for the driveway edge at the southwestern end (worse case) has been submitted to the AIS Dept for comment.

 

The AIS Dept advises the Planning Dept that the requested level of 14.20 does not comply with required issued alignment level at the property boundary and satisfactory vehicular access cannot be provided to the proposed development”.

 

The Planning Department is advised that a carport slab setback a minimum 650mm from the front boundary with a level of RL 14.45 would be acceptable to the AIS Department.

 

Councils’ Asset and Infrastructure Branch have also advised that prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the proposed carport the plans showing the driveway on Council property are to be amended as follows and be approved by Council’s Development Engineer:

 

a.   Deletion of planter bed along northern edge of driveway.

b.   Show a 1.40m wide footpath allocation from the face of kerb.

c.   Relocation of grated drain to within the private property.

d.   Full Engineering details of the proposed retaining walls/footings on Council property.

e.   Show correct issued alignment/boundary levels for the carport and pedestrian entrance concrete slabs.

 

Landscape Issues

 

            Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has advised that:

 

“     There are two trees, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that will be affected by the proposed works:

 

a)         One Leptospermum species (Ti Tree) and one Melaleuca species (Paperbark) located along the front property boundary. These trees are both older specimens, approximately 6 metres tall and in average health. Given the age of the trees it is not expected that they would have a significant safe, useful lifespan remaining. As such permission should be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of two replacement trees within the site.”

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required for this proposal as the area of the site does not exceed 4000m2.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·          Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

P1  New dwellings must achieve (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars.

 

 

P9  Design and siting of buildings, alterations minimises loss of solar access to neighbours.

 

P9  Neighbour’s north-facing living area windows receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

P9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor area receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced. 

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

S1  New dwellings provide certificate complying with a minimum (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2.8  North-facing windows to living areas received at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

S2  Private open space

receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

 

S9  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

 

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbours receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

S9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

See comments in Section 9.2.1 below on solar access.

 

See comments in Section 9.2.1 below on solar access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

See comments in Section 9.2.1 on solar access.

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

See comments in Section 9.2.1 on solar access.

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

S1  Stormwater is graded and drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter; or to a suitable absorption system.

 

S1  Rainwater tanks or other storage systems collect roof run-off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

S3  Landscaped area: contain low water demand plant species and design.

 

 

Complies via a condition of consent

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Landscaping plan to be provided prior to the commencement of works.

 

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

To remain as existing

 

To remain as existing

 

Complies – private open space provided at rear of dwelling.

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

FLOOR AREA

P1  Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms, minimise effects on neighbours and streets.

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

 

Permitted 0.6:1.

Proposed 0.58:1.

Complies (includes floor area of storeroom)

 

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P3  Design relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

P5  Second storey of a semi-detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height for house or attached dual occupancy.

 

S1  Maximum 3.5m external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear.

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

S4  Length of second storey portion is not greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

 

S5  Second storey potion of a semi is confined within a existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

Height, form and materials of dwelling to remain as existing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See comments below.

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The design will not result in any greater impacts then the previously approved DA

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

P1  Generally conforms with adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

P2  Allow neighbours adequate access to natural light, view sharing and retains trees and vegetation.

 

Side Setback

 

P3  Allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Side setbacks on corner allotments must integrate with established setbacks of both streets and maintain the streetscape.

Front Setback

 

S1  The average of adjoining dwelling or 6m setback where no adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

S3  900mm for any part over 1m above ground level up to one level in height.

 

1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point.

 

3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.

 

 

The setback of the existing dwelling to remain as existing.

 

Front setback of carport – 650mm

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side setback of carport structure  - 2m to south and 1.8m (from portico) to north.

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Overlooking neighbouring internal living areas and private open spaces is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

P3  Dwellings close to noise sources such as busy roads or industry designed to provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

P3  Front fences, landscape areas and driveways promote safety and security.

S1  Habitable room windows with direct outlook to others windows within 9m are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing or sill height to 1.5m.

 

S1  Direct view into the private open space of adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m.

 

S1  Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

S3  Buildings comply with

•AS-2107: Acoustics – recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

S1,.3  At least one habitable room window overlooks the street.

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

 

Windows and doors to storage area- not a habitable room – complies with DCP.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To remain as existing

 

To remain as existing

 

 

To remain as existing

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

             enable the efficient use of car spaces.

             safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

P3  Do not detract from the streetscape and are compatible with the dwelling.

 

P4  Car parking areas and access ways facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

S1  Car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.5 metres.

 

             Driveways have a minimum width of three metres and are set back at least one metre from the side boundary (max width 3m at boundary).

             Driveway gradients have a maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

             Garages and carport to a rear lane are 1m setbacks.

 

 

S2  Carports and garages located behind the building where rear access available, or behind building line where front access available.

 

S3  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of frontage.

Complies

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

See comments below in Section 9.1.2

 

 

 

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

Solid front fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.2m.

 

Fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.8m with upper two thirds at least 50% open. (Not applicable in Heritage Conservation Areas).

See comments below in Section 9.1.3

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

9.1     Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

9.1.2 Garages, Carports and Driveways. 

 

On 14 April 1999, the Health Building and Planning Committee approved the Section 82A Review of the original determination (DA 808/98) to permit a carport forward of the building line.  The approved dimensions of the proposal were 4m x 6m, with a 2m setback from the southern boundary. 

 

The current proposal is for a similarly located structure, however, the current proposal depicts an amended carport design, use of the under croft as a storage area and the carport slab is located at a higher level. The proposed design also includes a new portico entry, front fence and an increase in the number and height of retaining walls to create a larger level front patio.   The proposed development also details an increase in the length of the carport and height of the carport above the carport floor.  The proposed carport is setback 2m from the southern boundary, 650mm from the front boundary and has a proposed width of 4m. 

 

In regard to the increase in the height of the structure, the previously approved DA 808/1998 depicted the carport slab at RL 14.20 and the proposed application depicts a carport of RL of 14.55, an increase in height of 350mm.  However, Condition 26 of development consent No. 808/98 stated:

 

The design alignment level at the street boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be 370mm below the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.  The design alignment level at the street boundary must be strictly adhered to. 

 

The abovementioned alignment level results in a carport slab RL 14.55 and is required to ensure that a vehicle can safely access the carport. It should be noted that the Officers report relating to the S.82A Review which was considered by the Health, Building and Planning Committee in 1999 highlighted that the proposed development would require a 1m-height increase to comply with the alignment level. 

 

In order to lower the proposed structure and reduce its impacts upon the streetscape, the applicant was requested to provide a driveway profile of the development with the carport slab at RL of 14.20.  The additional detail was referred to Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Brach for assessment.  The following comments were provided:

 

The AIS Dept advises the Planning Dept that the requested level of 14.20 does not comply with required issued alignment level at the property boundary and satisfactory vehicular access cannot be provided to the proposed development.

 

The Planning Department is advised that a carport slab setback a minimum 650mm from the front boundary with a level of RL 14.45 would be acceptable to the AIS Department.

 

As detailed above, the applicant has a current consent for a similar structure and condition 26 of development consent 808/98 remains in force.  It is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed that the carport slab be at RL 14.45 which results in a reduction in height of 100mm when compared to the previously approved alignment levels.  While only a minor reduction in height, it will assist in reducing the amenity impacts of the development, in the streetscape and on adjoining properties.

 

  In regard to the increase in the height of the proposed carport above the carport floor level, the original approved carport was approved at a height of 2.996m and the proposed carport has a height of 3.22m.  To ensure that the proposed development does not result in greater impacts upon the adjoining properties and the streetscape than the previously approved structure, it is recommended that the height of the carport be reduced to maximum height of 2.996mm above the floor level of the carport slab.  

 

The previously approved application also depicted a simple lightweight carport structure with a with narrow carport posts.  Front fencing was not included in the previous approval.  The current application aims to alter the appearance of the previously approved carport by introducing rendered masonry pillars and balustrade to the carport structure and attaching a portico entry.  The height of the carport above the carport floor level has also been slightly increased due to the proposed roof pitch by approximately 224mm (when compared to the Construction Certificate Plans). 

 

The objectives and performance requirements include that on – site parking and driveways do not detract from the appearance of dwellings or the local streetscape.  The carport structure has been previously approved in the current location, however, it is considered that the proposed portico and solid balustrade to the sides and rear of the carport add unnecessary bulk to the structure.  In order to reduce the bulk and permit viewing of the dwelling house, it is recommended that the portico roof be deleted, supporting pillar and gate be reduced to a same height as the fence pillars and the balustrade to the side and rear of the carport be of an open design, similar to the balustrade proposed to the stairs along the north-eastern side of the carport. 

 

The applicant also advises that the proposal includes an accurate stair calculation for the differing land levels, construction of side rendered boundary fencing and terracing and lowering the front yard level to create a level front patio area.  When compared to the previous approval, the front patio area has been increased in depth from 3m to 4m, the levels between the dwelling and carport structure have been altered to permit the terracing of the site and landscaping and the retaining walls have been reconfigured in size and height to retain the proposed structure, amended levels and increase in front patio area.  It is considered that the proposed levels, retaining walls and steps will not result in any greater adverse upon the adjoining properties or streetscape above those previously approved and the altered levels cannot justify a refusal of the application.

 

The application also proposes to convert the under croft area of the carport to a storage room and install french doors at the rear and a small window in the southwest elevation.  A storeroom is not considered to be a habitable area under the definition of the DCP, therefore it is considered that privacy impacts from the proposed new openings will not be adverse.  Since the recommended alignment levels for the carport slab have been reduced by 100mm and the height of the carport above the floor level has been reduced to the height previously approved, the bulk and scale impacts upon the adjoining properties and streetscape will not be significantly greater then those previously approved by Council.  

 

The application proposes a length of 6.4m (including eaves) for the carport structure.  Under the provisions of the DCP, a car space requires a depth of only 5.5m.  The previously approved carport structure has a length of 6.3m (including eaves).  It is considered that the minor increase in length of the carport will not result in any additional adverse impacts.

 

The proposed structure has a front setback of 650mm from the front boundary. The previously approved structure was setback 520mm from the front boundary.  In considering the proposed setback, it will slightly reduce the prominence of the structure in the streetscape and will not result in significant adverse additional impacts in the streetscape and is therefore considered acceptable.   

 

In terms of landscaping, since the proposal is similar in size and location, the proposed structure will not result in the loss of any additional significant landscaping to the site.  The plans also state that landscaping is proposed to the site. It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed requiring that landscaping be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan be prepared.

 

9.1.3 Front Fence

 

   Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

   Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

The proposal includes a 1000mm high solid front fence with pillars to the height of 1200mm above the driveway slab. However, due to the slope of the site the fence pillars on the boundary will have an overall height of 2.5m.  The proposed fence design and height above the driveway slab complies with the preferred solution of 1200mm solid fence height, however, the portion of fence and pillars below the driveway do not.  Due to the slope of the site and required works to construct the driveway and carport slab, this height fence and pillar is required.  In considering the proposed height of the fence and pillars, it is limited only to a small portion of fence and in the context of the overall structure, the proposed fence will not result in any significant greater impacts to warrant refusal of the fence. 

 

9.2     Impact on adjoining development

 

9.2.1  Views and overshadowing

 

As detailed above, it is recommended that the garage slab be reduced to RL 14.45, which is 100mm less than the previously conditioned alignment level.  Furthermore, the proposed carport above the floor level of the carport is higher than that previously approved, however, a condition is recommended that that carport height above the floor level be reduced to the same height as the previously approved carport. 

 

With the recommended conditions of consent, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any additional adverse overshadowing or view loss to the adjoining properties as the overall height of the carport structure will not be increased above that previously approved and the proposed increase in length is considered to be minimal. It is also considered that the minor increase in front setback will not result in any significant additional impacts to the adjoining properties. 

 

9.3     Issues raised in Submissions

 

In response to the objector’s concerns, the height of the carport slab has been increased to comply with the required alignment levels of the condition 26 of development consent 808/98, although Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Branch have advised that the slab can be 100mm lower.  Also, a condition of consent has been recommended that the height of the carport above the slab be reduced to the same height as the previous approval.  With the recommended conditions of the consent the proposed development will not result in any significantly greater impacts above those already approved by the previous current consent. 

 

In regard to comment on streetscape and impacts from the portico and fencing, it is recommended that the portico be deleted and in the overall context of the site, the proposed fencing is acceptable. 

 

In regard to the comments on excavation and potential impacts upon the their property, conditions have been recommended that all existing side fencing and landscaping on the adjoining properties be protected and retained and that retaining walls or shoring be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

In relation to the comments on the trees, Council Landscape Technician has advised that there is a Ti Tree and Paperbark located along the front property boundary. These trees are both older specimens, approximately 6 metres tall and in average health. Given the age of the trees it is not expected that they would have a significant safe, useful lifespan remaining. As such permission should be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of two replacement trees within the site. Condition 42 of this report requires the planting of 2 x 45 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site.  The proposed gradient of the nature strip is similar to that already existing and if required Council will require the applicant to meet costs to suitably retain the nature strip.

 

In response to the comments on the setback of the proposed fence and portico from the adjoining 23 French Street, the plans depict the portico located approximately 1.6m from the side boundary and new masonry fencing.  As previously mentioned, it is recommended that the portico be deleted and Council’s Engineers have imposed regarding proposed works on the nature strip.  

 

Regarding the colours of the proposed development, a condition is recommended that details of the proposed colours, materials and textures be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. 

 

It is noted that the Consultant Planner engaged by the adjoining property owner details numerous objections in relation to the design, siting, bulk, scale and streetscape impacts of the proposed structure.  However, as detailed above, the applicant has a current consent for a similarly located structure and the proposed structure has been conditioned to ensure that the height of the structure does not exceed that previously approved by the Council in 1999.  In regard to the cumulative visual impact of the total development including the associated retaining works, it is considered that with the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal will not result in any significant greater impacts upon the streetscape and adjoining properties above those previously approved.  The encroachment of the structure upon Council’s footway has been addressed by Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Branch via conditions. 

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and Local Environmental Plan 1998.  With the imposition of the recommended conditions to reduce the height of the carport to the same as previously approved, the deletion of the portico roof and replacement of the proposed solid balustrade to the carport with open balustrade, it is considered that impacts from the proposed development will not be significantly greater than the previously approved structure. 

 

        The application is therefore recommended for approval.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1103/2002 for a Carport and storeroom forward of the building line including a new portico, front and side fencing, retaining walls and front patio  at 25 French Street, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Sheet 1 to 3 drawn by Classic Plans, dated 28/10/2001 and received by Council on 21 November 2001, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

2          The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to commencement of any building works.

 

3.         To reduce the bulk of the development, the roof of the portico shall be deleted and the supporting pillar and gate shall be reduced to the height of the fence pillars RL 15.75. Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate Plans. 

 

4.         The solid elements of the balustrade on the side and rear edges of the carport slab shall be deleted and replaced with a balustrade of open construction.  The balustrade shall have the same form of open construction as the balustrade proposed along the steps on the north east side of the carport.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate Plans. 

 

5          There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

6.         Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

7.         Landscaping shall be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

8.         The height of the carport above the floor level shall be reduced to the same height as the previously carport above the floor level.  In this regard, the carport shall have a maximum height of 2.996mm above the floor level of the carport slab.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate plans.  

 

9.         All existing side boundary fencing and landscaping located along the common boundary or located on the adjoining properties shall be retained and protected during excavation and construction works, unless written approval is provided by the adjoining property owner advising that they permit the removal of the fencing. 

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

10.       Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment prior to commencement of works.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

11.       All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

12.       In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·          has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·          is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $3,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

13.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

14.       Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

15.       Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

16.       A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

17.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

18.       Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

19.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations

 

20.       Noise emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority, except as may be amended by the conditions of this approval.

 

21.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions at all times.

 

22.       Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

23.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

24.       Retaining walls or shoring must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, if the soil conditions require it, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

25.              If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·          preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·          if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and

·          at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

26.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure;

 

27.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior o a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $700.00           -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

28.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)     Construct a concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site and any associated works such as retaining walls and footings, guard/hand rails and footpath construction.

 

29.       Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the proposed carport the plans showing the driveway on Council property are to be amended as follows and be approved by Council’s Development Engineer:

 

f.    Deletion of planter bed along northern edge of driveway.

g.   Show a 1.40m wide footpath allocation from the face of kerb.

h.   Relocation of grated drain to within the private property.

i.    Full Engineering details of the proposed retaining walls/footings on Council property.

j.    Show correct issued alignment/boundary levels for the carport and pedestrian entrance concrete slabs.

 

30.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

31.       The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

32.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be as follows:

 

is to be at RL 14.45 using datum’s supplied by applicant and detailed on the plans Drawn by Classic Plans, Sheets 1 to 3, dated 28/10/01 and received by Council on 21 November 2001.  

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 93990923.The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

33.       The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

34.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $66.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

 

35.       A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

36.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra, Energy Australia, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

37.       Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 93990923.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

38.       That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

39.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

Tree Management

 

40.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 2 x 45 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a.         One Leptospermum species (Ti Tree) located along the front property boundary.

 

b.         One Melaleuca species (Paperbark) located along the front property boundary.

 

41.       Permission is granted for the removal of only those trees falling within the area occupied by the approved works. Removal of the remaining trees on the site are subject to separate application under the Tree Preservation Order.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

DA Report 808/98         

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

MARNIE STEWART

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER 

 

 

 

 

 

 












 

MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

 

9.1       By Councillor M. Matson – Persecution of Falungong Practitioners. (98/S/0670 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council resolves to write to the Chinese Ambassador in Canberra urging the Chinese Government to halt the persecution of Falungong Practitioners within and outside China.

 

9.2              By Councillor P. Schick – Prohibiting Advertising material on private and public property. (98/S/0045 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, as a matter of urgency a report be prepared to form part of RCC Local Environment Plan to prohibit placing posters or advertising material on private or public property eg, Telegraph poles, shop building facades.

 

9.3       By Councillor C. Matthews –Grant to enclose 50m Pool. (98/S/3927 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council seek support from the State Government’s Sport and Recreation Department for a grant to this Council to have the 50 metre pool at Heffron Park enclosed.

 

9.4       By Councillor C. Matthews – Amendment of Tree Preservation Order. (98/S/1847 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of amending Council’s Tree Preservation Order to assist local residents in the removal of nuisance and large trees from within the boundaries of their own properties and this report be submitted to the next Council Meeting.

 

9.5              By Councillor T. Seng – Cross-Cultural Training Program. (98/S/2020)

 

That, given the significant multicultural population of Randwick City, this Council introduce a cross-cultural training program and that all employees are encouraged to attend where possible.

 

9.6              By Councillor T. Seng – Tree Cutting Policy. (98/S/1100)

 

That Randwick City Council adopt a more liberal Tree Cutting Policy in situations where the continued presence of trees pose a danger to lives and properties.

 

9.7              By Councillor T. Seng – E-Business. (98/S/4240)

 

That, given the enormous benefits of e-business and its extensive adoption at other Councils, the General Manager be asked to provide a report on:

 

a)                  The e-business strategy of Randwick Council; and

 

b)                  The extent of efficiency and cost savings to be achieved in monetary terms upon the successful implementation of such strategy.

 

9.8              By Councillor T. Seng – Gordon Gardens Apartment in Ku-ring-Gai. (98/S/0962)

 

That the General Manager be asked:

 

a)                  To provide a brief report on the “Gordon Gardens Apartment” fiasco in Ku-Ring-Gai Council where residents were allowed to move in before an occupancy certificate had been issued.  The report to include comments on the extent of such problems throughout NSW; and

 

b)                  How Randwick Council could adopt measures to prevent such incidents occurring in our City.

 

9.9              By Councillor C. Bastic – Maroubra Beach – Parking Situation. (98/S/1531 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared on the parking situation in the vicinity of Maroubra Beach.

 

9.10          By Councillor C. Bastic – Bowen Library Awning. (98/S/4415 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared on the situation of the Bowen Library awning.

 

9.11          By Councillor A. Andrews – Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Plan. (98/S/1654 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared for the next Works Committee Meeting as to the current status for the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Plan.

 

9.12          By Councillor A. Andrews – Wombat Crossing at South Coogee Public School. (R/0548/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared for next Traffic Committee Meeting for the construction of a wombat crossing at the pedestrian crossing located at South Coogee Public School located on Moverley Road South Coogee.

 

9.13          By Councillor M. Matson – Deviation from George Street Tree Master Plan. (R/0325/03 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, the following consultation with Woollahra Council staff and residents with an interest in the Tree Master Plan, a report will be brought back to the next Works Committee Meeting addressing the appropriateness of deviating from the Tree Master Plan for George Street, Randwick.

 

Alternative replacement trees will include, Glochidion Ferdinandi, Ceratopetalum Apeltalum, Syzygium Paniculatum , Toona Ciliata, Harpulia Pendula, Flinersia Australas, and any other  forthcoming suggestions that judged likely to retain the prevailing canopy effect in George Street.

 

9.14          By Councillor M. Matson – Examination of Cost Benefit to the Community of Retaining Problem Trees. (R/0325/03 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, as a response to the community reaction to our present policy of removing identified problem trees such Ficus ‘Hillii’ (i.e Figs), Council will host a community forum in the Town Hall to allow debate on the amenity value and cost benefit to the Community of retaining such trees. The outcomes of the forum will be reported back to a Council Meeting.

 

9.15          By Councillor M .Matson – Report back on Response to previous Resolution on Backpackers. (98/S/3770 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be brought to the next Council Meeting detailing the response to Council’s resolution of 28th November, 2000 to Item 11.4, “LGA Position Relating to Backpacker Establishments.”

 

9.16          By Councillor M. Matson – Response to Alcohol related riot in Coogee on January, 20th. (98/S/1285 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, as a response to the riot situation originating in Coogee Bay Road in the early hours of Sunday, 20th January this year, Council will undertake community consultation with the intent of applying to the Licensing Court of NSW for reductions in the trading hours allowed under the liquor licenses of both the Coogee Bay Hotel and that of the Coogee Beach Palace Hotel.