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 March, 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 MARCH, 2002 AT 6:00 PM.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2002 - DECEMBER 2001 QUARTER REVIEW - 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2002 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

3

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 22/2002 - BEACH INSPECTOR LIFEGUARD SERVICE.

5

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 23/2002 - TENDER 02/02 - TREE PRUNING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.

7

 


 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 24/2002 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL'S TREE PRESERVATION ORDER.

21

 


7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 25/2002 - SYDNEY BUSES - PROPOSED NEW NETWORK IN THE EASTERN SUBURBS.

24

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 26/2002 - PROHIBITING ADVERTISING MATERIAL ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY.

29

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 27/2002 - REFUND OF COUNCIL FUNDS BEING HELD BY SSROC.

36

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 4/2002 - INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT.

41

 

 

9           Director Planning & Environment's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 12/2002 - 10 LIGURIA STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.  (DEFERRED)

43

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 13/2002 - AMENDED FEES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT.

83

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11        Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                   

By Councillors M. Daley and A. White – Matraville Commercial Precinct. 

90

11.2

By Councillor M. Whitehead – Footpath, McDougall Street, Kensington. 

90

11.3

By Councillor M. Whitehead – Illegal Footpath Parking. 

90

11.4

By Councillor C. Matthews – Violence in vicinity of Yarra Bay.

90

11.5

By Councillor C. Matthews – Dead Trees in Byrne Crescent, Maroubra. 

90

11.6

By Councillor C. Matthews – Environmental Vandalism at Malabar Pool. 

90

11.7

By Councillor C. Matthews – Installation of a Boom Gate at Malabar Pool. 

91

11.8

By Councillor P. Schick – Cigarette Butt Disposal Units to be Installed. 

9

11.9

By Councillor M. Matson –Refugees and Children in Detention. 

91

11.10

By Councillor M. Matson – Opposition to Howard Government’s Airport Privatisation.

91

11.11

By Councillor J. Greenwood – Container Deposit Legislation. 

91

11.12

By Councillor J. Greenwood and M. Matson – Vegetation maintenance in Arthur Byrne Reserve. 

92

11.13

By Councillor M. Whitehead – Design Plan for the Up-grading of Southern Cross, Kingsford. 

92

11.14

By Councillor M. Whitehead – Mt Sinai College. 

92

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

December 2001 Quarter Review - 2001/04 Management Plan

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2001/04 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the December Quarter Review of the 2001/04 Plan.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. Currently there are seven Principal Activities being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the December Quarter Review – 2001/04 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. December 2001 Quarter Review - under separate cover.

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

238/151/D-577/93,  D/0249/2001,D/0525/2000, P/001994

 

 

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 –

 

(i)         Tony Patellis for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 208 Arden Street, Coogee 2034.

 

(ii)        Mr. Choi Kwang Hoon and Ms. Han Myung Joo for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 151 Dolphin Street, Coogee 2034.

 

(iii)       Anni Hermanto for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 300/116-132 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 2035.

 

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:

 

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

 

(i)         Tony Patellis for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 208 Arden Street, Coogee 2034.

 

(ii)        Mr. Choi Kwang Hoon and Ms. Han Myung Joo for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 151 Dolphin Street, Coogee 2034.

 

(iii)       Anni Hermanto for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 300/116-132 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 2035.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 22/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BEACH INSPECTOR LIFEGUARD SERVICE

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1147

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In order to measure the effectiveness of the  Randwick City Council Beach Inspector Lifeguard Service it was decided to carry out a customer satisfaction survey during the 2001 / 2002 summer season.  The survey was carried out by Council’s Performance Improvement Section.  Copies of the survey results and covering report are attached.

 

ISSUES:

 

The survey results have been reviewed by both the Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services and by MANEX.

 

The question of reviewing the beach inspectors uniform is a complex one.  The existing uniform was developed to reflect Council’s corporate colours This involved a change from blue and white to green and white several years ago.  Since that time there have been some moves to have Council beach inspectors and surf club patrols in the same uniforms.  This has been a contentious issue in the areas that it has been considered.

 

It is considered that the question of the colour of the uniform is a subset of the more fundamental issue of the visibility and availability of lifeguards on Council’s beaches.  This issue could be more appropriately addressed within the development of a promotional and marketing strategy for the service.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The results of the survey show a high level of satisfaction for the service being provided by Council’s Beach Inspector Lifeguard Service.   It is important that this information be used to establish benchmarks for the service.  It is also important that the areas of less satisfactory performance be identified and action be taken within resource constraints to improve service in those areas.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The report on the Beach Inspector Lifeguard Service – Customer Satisfaction Survey 2002 be received and noted;

2.         The  Beach Inspector Lifeguard Service  standards and benchmarks for the delivery of services be reviewed;

3.         A promotional and marketing strategy for the Beach Inspector Lifeguard Service including education of the public on the role of the service be implemented;

4.         A cleanliness and litter campaign be implemented;

5.         Signposting be implemented on the beach to indicate where the Beach Inspectors can be found;

6.         Consideration be given in the 2002/2003 budget for the construction of a second block of toilets at Coogee; and

7.         Liaison with community agencies and the tourism industry to raise the profile of Coogee Beach as a tourist destination, be implemented.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2002 - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 23/2001

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 02/02 - TREE PRUNING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4449

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with the permission provided by the General Manager on 9 January, 2002, Tenders were invited by Randwick City Council on 29 January, 2002, for the provision of a tree trimming service to prune and/or remove its street tree assets at selected sites throughout the City for a period of three (3) years. Tenders for the provision of this service closed at 10am, Tuesday, 19 February, 2002.

 

Prospective Tenderers collected six (6) sets of Tender documents. At the time of closing, six Tenders had been lodged with Council by the date specified. All six Tenders conformed to the requirements of the Tender Specification. Discussion and evaluation of these Tenders are set out in this report.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The tree pruning and associated works of Council’s street tree assets has been regularly put out to Tender by Council since October, 1996. Prior to this, the majority of tree pruning/removal works were carried out by Council day labour staff but increased demand and better value for money led to this work being put out to Tender.

 

On the last occasion that this work was tendered, it was for a period of one (1) year with a twelve-month option. The contract was awarded to All Suburbs Tree Services and at the end of the initial contract period the twelve-month extension was awarded to that same company.

 

On this occasion the Tender is for a period of three (3) years and at the expiration of that time the works will again be put out to public tender.

 

ISSUES:

Annual Tree Pruning/Removal Expenditure

 

During the period between July, 2000, and June, 2001, there were approximately 5,000 Council street trees pruned and approximately 400 removed by Council’s incumbent tree trimming contractors. This represented a cost to Council of approximately $280,000.

 

It is envisaged that the proportion of funds dedicated to contract tree pruning and/or removal works over the three-year period of this contract will be in the same vicinity per annum.

 

Tender Assessment

 

Tenderers were advised in the Tender documents under ‘Conditions of Tendering’ (Clause A12 - Evaluation Criteria) that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders shall be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1999 and in general accordance with the selection criteria set out below:

 

·          Price;

 

·          Response time to complete the work;

 

·          Financial capacity to carry out the work;

 

·          Experience and ability to complete work;

 

·          Compliance with the Specification;

 

·          Quality Management System of the Tenderer;

 

·          Occupational Health and Safety System of the Tenderer;

 

·          Environmental awareness.

 

These criteria were not listed in any particular order in the Tender documents and it was emphasised that they would not be accorded equal weight in the Tender assessment process. It was also pointed out that these criteria were intended to simply give Tenderers a general indication of the Council’s priorities and that Council reserved the right to disregard any of the above-listed criteria or to apply any other criteria. 

 

Selection Committee

 

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all Tender submissions was conducted by a panel comprising Council’s Manager – Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian Oleary, Tree Management Officer, Bryan Bourke, and Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinator (North), Salena Knight.

 

Selection Process

Detailed reference checks were carried out on all six (6) Tenderers and this involved contacting three of the referees provided with each Tender.

Information sought from referees included verification that the Tenderer had undertaken works in the vicinity of power lines, the known capacity of the Tenderer to carry out the specified works both professionally and safely and whether the referee would engage the Tenderer to carry out tree pruning/removal works again.

 

A preliminary assessment of all Tender documentation was undertaken by the Selection Committee and this assessment included the evaluation and scoring of all the key elements contained in the selection criteria. Once this preliminary assessment was completed the three Tenderers with the lowest composite Specification percentage and the highest Base Pruning Rate were eliminated.

 

The general evaluation criteria and a breakdown of their corresponding percentage weightings are set out below:

 

·          General Requirements                                       2.5%

·          Indemnity and Relationship Issues                     20.00%

·          Tenderer’s Work Methods                               25.00%

·          Tenderer Organisational Systems                      20.00%

·          Rates Comparison                                            10.00%

·          Tenderer’s Experience                          10.00%

·          Tenderer Capability                                          12.5%

 

TOTAL:                      100%

 

A comprehensive table of the evaluation scoring guidelines and the composite percentage scores of all six Tenderers, as well as a cost/needs analysis chart, are attached.

 

Of the three remaining Tenders, it was identified that further clarification on key issues was required in order to finalise the assessment.

 

These issues included:

 

·          Rates for call outs in emergency situations and outside specified hours of operation;

 

·          Updated list of employee qualifications;

 

·          Response time for emergencies;

 

·          Examples of Site Assessment procedures, Hazard Assessment procedures, Safe Work Practice documentation, etc.

 

A separate meeting with each of the principal representatives of the three short-listed Tenderers was held on Friday, 15 March, 2002, to discuss the above matters and to clarify any outstanding issues of concern to either the Tenderers or Council. These meetings were attended by all three members of the Selection Committee as well as the principal representative of each Tender company.

 

The following short-listed Tenderers were then evaluated completely by the Selection Committee:

 

1.         All Suburbs Tree Services

2.         Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd

3.         Utility Asset Management

 

Summary of Short-listed Tenderers:

 

All Suburbs Tree Services

·          This Tenderer is the incumbent tree trimming contractor used by Council for the majority of its street tree pruning and/or removal work. It has carried out extensive work for Council over a number of years and has the capacity to do the specified works both professionally and expeditiously. Its works depot is located in Matraville and this allows a quick response to both emergencies and scheduled works.

 

This Tenderer has the lowest base pruning rate ($34.00 per tree) and is prepared to provide a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a-week callout service to Council at no extra cost. It also has the shortest emergency response time (20 minutes) and this is obviously an important issue when dealing with unexpected and severe windstorm situations. The team did not consider that this response time was achievable on all occasions.

 

The Tenderer scored well in the evaluation of its work methods as well as with its experience and capacity to undertake the specified works. It rated second best in a comparison of labour rates and scored reasonably well in the general requirements area.

 

However, the Tenderer was comparatively deficient in a number of important areas that could have ramifications for Council.

 

The Tenderer’s staff met the minimum requirements stipulated in the Specification but part of its response to Council’s OH & S questionnaire indicates that staff are not regularly provided with information on company health and safety matters.

 

The Safety Management Plan submitted by the Tenderer met the necessary requirements. The Tenderer also submitted a generic business management system outline as part of its OH & S management system, but the team found no relevant information in relation to OH & S within.

 

The Tenderer did not submit any reasonable environmental management system and careful scrutiny of all their accompanying documents provided no specific information or any procedures/strategies that could be reasonably assessed by the team.

 

There were also serious concerns about the Tenderer’s ability to manage public relations issues and to successfully indemnify Council against matters of third party liability that might arise during the period of the contract.

 

Specifically, the Tenderer was not able to show a satisfactory understanding of the indemnity to be provided to the Council or to demonstrate how issues of potential liability might be dealt with in the best interests of the Council.

 

The team’s concerns were further confirmed by the Tenderer’s proposal to utilise the services of an investigation and claims management firm to deal with matters of liability. The team considered that this approach was not in the best interests of the Council and that it might needlessly exacerbate a minor matter.

 

It was also noted that the company provided no information or documentation detailing any operational complaints handling procedure/policy.

 

Advanced Arbor Services Pty Ltd

·          This Tenderer has been operating in one form or another since 1970 and has undertaken extensive tree pruning/removal works for a number of Local and State Government authorities. It is a member of both the Tree Contractors’ Association of NSW and the National Arborists’ Association.

 

Its Tender shows that it has the capacity to undertake all specified works and that its employees are more than qualified in all aspects of tree surgery/arboricultural work.  The Tenderer is located at Mortdale in Sydney and this would allow it to respond quite adequately to both emergency situations and in the provision of scheduled works.

 

This Tender has the second lowest base pruning rate ($36.00 per tree) and also provides a twenty-four hour emergency service. However, this service is not provided at no cost to Council but at the rates provided in its Tender submission.

 

This would have a minor cost implication to Council when compared with the no-cost service offered by All Suburbs Tree Services. The Tenderer has guaranteed an emergency response time of two (2) hours and this is judged as being perfectly adequate. 

 

This Tender also scored well in the assessment of its work methods as well as its capability and experience for carrying out this type of work. It came in fourth in its comparison of work rates but scored very well in the general requirements area.

 

It is in the areas of indemnity and relationship issues, qualification of staff and environmental and OH & S capability that this Tender rates very highly.

 

All supervisory staff are more than adequately qualified and experienced and the Tenderer is committed to providing all its employees with training of the highest standard.

 

All new staff are contracted as trainees and are provided with training by a registered training organisation that ensures that they eventually receive certificates I through IV in Horticulture/Arboriculture. Most operational staff are in either stage II or III of the Horticulture/Arboriculture Certificate and three are qualified arborists.

 

The Tenderer has also provided a comprehensive company training matrix with its Tender documentation.

 

This Tender has comprehensive Safe Work Procedures and Safe Work Method Statements for every aspect of its operations. It also has quality, environment and safety systems in place as well as a system for assessing hazards and for implementing any hazard control measures that may be necessary.

 

Advanced Arbor Service appear to be a strongly customer-focused organisation that has a comprehensive customer complaints procedure already in place and that realises the importance of indemnifying Council against any sort of litigation that may occur as a result of its tree pruning/removal operations.

 

Utility Asset Management

·          This Tenderer has been in operation since 1978 and is involved in all aspects of the tree care and maintenance industry – primarily in the Sydney region. It provides a comprehensive range of services as diverse as tree planting, street tree surveys, consultancy wok, report writing, electricity line clearance, etc.

 

The Tenderer is a member of the Tree Contractors’ Association of NSW, the National Arborists’ Association, the Australian chapter of the I.S.A. and the Local Government Tree Resources Association.

 

The Tenderer has carried out extensive tree pruning/removal operations for a number of Sydney Councils as well as other authorities such as Energy Australia. In fact, this Tenderer was only recently contracted by Energy Australia to prune Randwick City Council’s street tree assets away from its overhead electricity network.

 

Again, this particular Tenderer also showed that it had the capability to carry out the scope of works required by Council and to complete those works both professionally and expeditiously.

 

The staff qualification checklist supplied with its Tender documentation indicates that its staff are more than adequately qualified to carry out the tasks required. The Tenderer is located at Kirrawee in Sydney and this would also allow a reasonable response to any emergency circumstance and for the undertaking of all scheduled works.

 

This Tender had the third lowest tree pruning rate ($38.00 per tree) and has indicated they will provide a twenty-four hour emergency service. This service will be provided at the rates specified in the Tender documents and these rates are comparable to those of Advanced Arbor Services.

 

The Tenderer has guaranteed an emergency response time of two hours (the same as Advanced Arbor Services) and this is viewed as adequate.

 

It scored well in the assessment of its work methods and there is no doubt about its capability and experience in relation to the type of work to be undertaken. It rated third in its work rates comparison and also scored very well in general requirements.

 

Again, it is in the areas of qualifications of staff, environmental management system, OH & S capability and indemnity and relationship issues that this company scores very well.

 

All staff are more than adequately qualified in arboricultural matters as well as first aid. Most have completed either Certificate II in Horticulture or Arboriculture Stage II. The Tenderer is committed to providing extensive training for its personnel and a training matrix is provided with its Tender documents.

 

Utility Asset Management has in place a comprehensive O H & S policy as well as an Occupational Rehabilitation Policy. They also have an extremely detailed Safety Plan as well as a comprehensive Quality Plan and Environmental Plan.  These documents more than cover the requirements set out by Council in its Tender.

 

This Tenderer has provided information that shows it has a broad understanding of indemnity and relationship issues but does not appear to have any specific customer complaints procedure in operation.

 

To adequately assess how the differences between the single unit pruning rate may impact on this Tender, it might best be demonstrated as follows:

 

In the period July 2000 - June 2001 there were approximately 5,000 street trees pruned throughout the City. The difference between the rate provided by All Suburbs Tree Service ($34.00) and that of Advanced Arbor ($36.00) would represent a cost differential of approximately $10,000 per annum. That same differential would apply when comparing the rate supplied by Advanced Arbor ($36.00) and Utility Asset Management ($38.00).

 

Therefore, the engaging of Utility Asset Management (with the highest base pruning rate) as the tree trimming contractor would involve additional pruning expenditure of approximately $20,000 per annum.

 

A cost/needs analysis of the three short-listed Tenders shows that Advanced Arbor Services has the highest aggregate Specification percentage (88.6 percent), followed by Utility Asset Management (88.5 percent) and then All Suburbs Tree Services (83.3 percent. This is the composite percentage score credited to Tenderers once all the evaluation criteria are totaled.

 

The second part of this cost/needs analysis comprises the comparative Base Pruning Rates and the lowest of these was All Suburbs Tree Services ($34.00), followed by Advanced Arbor Services ($36.00) and then Utility Asset Management ($38.00).

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The three short-listed Tenders all have both the qualified staff and capability necessary to undertake the range of tasks associated with this Tender.

 

They all have extensive experience in tree pruning work around power lines and have all been engaged by Local Government authorities over long periods to undertake this type of work.

 

An evaluation of a number of hypothetical tree trimming and removal operations indicated that they were all conversant with the range of issues and problems associated with this type of work.

 

One Tenderer (All Suburbs Tree Services) is prepared to offer Council a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a-week emergency service at no cost and this is obviously an important consideration. It is also based at Matraville and has guaranteed a response time of twenty minutes.

 

The other two Tenderers offered a twenty-four hour emergency service and a guaranteed response time of two hours or less at the relevant rates supplied with their Tenders.

 

The base pruning rates offered by these three Tenderers differed by only four dollars per tree for the range of pruning operations that would be required.

 

However, in the areas of indemnity and public relations management, OH & S policies, environmental systems and qualifications and ongoing training of staff there were some important differences.

 

Advanced Arbor Services has a comprehensive customer complaints procedure in operation and appears to be the most customer-focused of all the three Tenderers. It also appeared to appreciate more than the other two Tenderers the need to expeditiously deal with all indemnity issues before they became a litigation problem for Council.

 

It also had the most appropriate and comprehensive safe work method and safe work procedures documentation as well as quality, environmental and safety systems in place.

Utility Asset Management also had these policies and systems in place but they are more voluminous and less readily understood than those of Advanced Arbor Services.

 

Advanced Arbor Services has the best-trained workforce of the three Tenderers and is committed to providing the highest level of ongoing training to its employees. This is borne out by its company training statement/policy and training matrix.

 

Because of the nature of the work involved, Council’s increased exposure to public liability exposure and an increased onus of responsibility regarding OH & S matters, indemnity and relationship issues now require far more consideration than they may have done in the past.

 

This can be borne out by the fact that there has been a steady increase in the number of public liability claims made against Council and property damages claims made against contractors engaged by Council over the past few years. Council has also only recently adopted its Occupational Health and Safety Policy and this area is now an extremely important issue in any Tender evaluation.

 

Environmental considerations are also far more important than they may have once been and any company undertaking tree trimming and/or removal operations should be expected to have extensive and relevant environmental systems in operation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council accepts the Tender for Tree Pruning and Associated Works submitted by Advanced Arbor Services for a period of three (3) years.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Evaluation scores

Evaluation scoring guidelines

Cost/Needs Analysis

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 





 



 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 24/2002

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL'S TREE PRESERVATION ORDER.

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1847

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council, at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 26 February, 2002, passed a resolution that a report be prepared on the feasibility of amending Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to assist local residents in the removal of nuisance and large trees from within the boundaries of their own properties.

 

ISSUES:

 

On 25 February, 1986, Randwick City Council resolved that it being expedient for the purpose of securing amenity under the provisions of Clause 44 of the then Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) be created and implemented.

 

This Order was originally introduced in response to community concern that many trees were being lost from within the City through property development and indiscriminate tree felling and was designed primarily to protect and preserve mature and significant trees.

 

The Tree Preservation Order has been amended on three occasions since its introduction – primarily in response to administrative and legal anomalies identified within the original document. The latest amended Order was adopted by Council on 14 August, 2001.

 

During calendar year 2000 there were 764 applications made under the provisions of Council’s TPO and this jumped markedly to 1059 during calendar year 2001.

 

This increase may be explained by the fact that the community has become more aware of both environmental issues in general as well as its obligations under Council’s TPO (copies of the Order were sent to every resident and property owner with their rates notices in 2001).

 

Of the 1059 applications made under the provisions of Council’s TPO during 2001, 963 were approved for either pruning and/or removal. This represents an approval rate of 91percent.

 

Ninety-six applications were refused during this period and this represents a rejection rate of just nine percent.

 

Between 1 January, 2002, and 8 March, 2002, there have been 179 applications made to either prune or remove trees under Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Of those 179 applications, only twelve have been refused – representing a rejection rate of just under seven percent.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

During periods of storm activity or high winds, property owners become perhaps more concerned about the damage that may be caused by trees than they might be ordinarily. This is exacerbated by extensive media coverage of the potential damage that may be caused by the falling or collapse of large trees onto properties, over power lines, etc.

 

However, the facts simply do not support this perception of the threat posed by trees during these periods of unstable weather activity.

 

Council’s Tree Preservation Order specifically states that consent shall not be required to remove trees where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that the tree/s is dying, dead or dangerous or which are declared noxious weeds in the State of New South Wales or in all land situated within the City of Randwick.

 

Where application is made to Council for consent to remove a tree/s and it can be demonstrated to the appropriate Council officer that there is a legitimate reason to either prune or remove the subject tree, consent is generally granted.

 

This is particularly the case when the owner of a tree covered by the Order raises the issue of safety or concerns about potential damage to either persons and/or property.

 

In circumstances where the Council officer assessing the TPO application has some doubt about whether a tree should be removed, a second opinion is generally sought by an appropriately qualified Council officer.

 

In any situation where a request to remove a tree/s is refused, the applicant is advised of all avenues available to them to appeal that decision. This generally results in a report into the matter being prepared by myself and the issue then being resolved either by the Director – Asset and Infrastructure Services or Council itself.

 

This clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient scope and flexibility within the assessment and determination process of TPO applications to allow for a reasoned outcome whilst maintaining the integrity and purpose of the Order.

 

This can be supported by the fact that during the twelve months of 2001 there were 1059 applications made under the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order to either prune and/or remove tree/s and only ninety-six of those were refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.         The report be received and noted

2.         No amendment be made to the Tree Preservation Order at this time.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE PRESERVATION OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 25/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SYDNEY BUSES - PROPOSED NEW NETWORK IN THE EASTERN SUBURBS

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0959  Pt 3

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 October 2001 and Works Committee meetings held on 13 November 2001 and 12 February 2002 considered reports on a proposal by Sydney Buses for a new bus network in the Eastern Suburbs.

 

At the above October 2001 and February 2002 meetings, representatives from Sydney Buses presented the proposal to the Council.

 

Consequently, Council at its meeting held on 12 February 2002 resolved:

 

“that the matter be referred to the next meeting of the Randwick Traffic Committee for consideration and be reported back to Council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The matter was considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 12 March 2002 and an extract of the report is shown below:

 

“The State Transit Authority has forwarded a table indicating the infrastructure requirements for the proposed new bus network in the Eastern Suburbs. A total of 42 bus stops will require modification. This comprises of 10 new bus stops, the remaining 32 locations are removals of bus stops. A copy of the STA list is attached.

 

The new bus network will result in the following roads no longer servicing bus routes:

 

·          Storey Street, Maroubra Junction between Garden Street and Flower Street

·          Rainbow Street, Kingsford, between Kennedy Street and Avoca Street

·          Meeks Street, Kingsford, between Anzac Parade and Kennedy Street

·          Woomera Avenue, Phillip Bay, between Bega Crescent and Bunnerong Road

·          Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay

·          Yarra Road, Phillip Bay

 

The additional roads required to service the new bus network are:

 

·          Barker Street, Randwick, between Botany Street and Avoca Street

·          Kennedy Street, Kingsford, between Meeks Street and Rainbow Street

·          Carrington Road, Clovelly, north of Coogee Bay Road

 

Council’s traffic engineers have inspected each of the bus stop locations and advise that the locations are considered satisfactory provided that the following comments/alterations are included:

 

·          The Bus Zone scheduled for removal in Arden Street in front of Clovelly Public School is within the Waverley Council Local Government Area and requires their approval.

 

·          The Bus Zone in Carrington Road in front of No. 104 should be installed  across the frontage of 104A to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The Bus Zones scheduled for installation in Garden Street in front of No’s. 57 and 62 should be located as close to Storey Street intersection as possible to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The bus shelter in front of La Perouse Public School in Phillip Bay will require removal at STA’s expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop. Council will liase with JC Decaux for the relocation of the shelter to an appropriate site.   

 

·          The JC Decaux bus shelter in front of No.5 Botany Street, Randwick will require removal at STA’s expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.

 

·          The Bus Zones to be installed in Kennedy Street between Bow Lane and Meeks St should be located near No’s 43 to 45 and south of the Street Post Box.”

 

At the Randwick Traffic Committee meeting, the Committee requested that residents adjacent to any new bus stops be informed by State Transit – Sydney Buses prior to the installation of the new bus stops.

 

The State Transit representative advised that the 2 bus stops in Prince Edward Street, Malabar scheduled for removal will need to be maintained as Route 399 buses will still travel along Prince Edward Street at night.

 

The Traffic Engineer advised that an on-site inspection had been carried out with State Transit representatives, the Mayor and Council’s Traffic Engineers at the intersection of Arden Street and Clovelly Road in order to consider and observe STA bus turning movements at the existing roundabout.

 

Details of the intersection have now been surveyed and a design is being prepared for the modification of the roundabout in order to accommodate the left turn movement for the Route 353 bus service from Arden Street to Clovelly Road travelling to Bondi Junction and the associated right turn movement on the return trip.  Also, it should be noted that the cost of this modification is to be met by Sydney Buses, as it is part of their proposal.

 

Inspections were also carried out in Belmore Road to assess the turning movements of low floor Route 400 buses at the intersection of Arthur Street.

 

Although it was observed that low floor buses could travel over the raised threshold, Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that any modification to lower the raised threshold could increase vehicular speeds turning in and out of Arthur Street and the safety benefit of the raised threshold to pedestrian traffic using the western footpath of Belmore Road would be lost.  Also, any changes would affect street drainage in Belmore Road at this location.

 

The State Transit representative advised that an alternate route would be considered for only the low floor buses on the 400 bus route.

 

The Traffic Committee recommended:

 

THAT the bus route modifications and removal and installation of bus stops as detailed in the Sydney Buses infrastructure requirements for Eastern Suburbs Better Buses be approved subject to:

 

·          The Bus Zone scheduled for removal in Arden Street in front of Clovelly Public School being supported by Waverley Council.

 

·          The Bus Zone on Carrington Road in front of No. 104 should be installed  across the frontage of 104A to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The Bus Zones scheduled for installation in Garden Street in front of No’s. 57 and 62 should be located as close to Storey Street intersection as possible to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The bus shelter in front of La Perouse Public School in Yarra Road, Phillip Bay will require removal at STA’s expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.

 

·          The JC Decaux bus shelter in front of No.5 Botany Street, Randwick  will require removal at STA’s expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.

 

·          The Bus Zones to be installed in Kennedy Street between Bow Lane and Meeks St should be located near No’s 43 to 45 Meeks Street and south of the Post Office Box.

 

·          The bus stops in Prince Edward Street, Malabar scheduled for removal being retained.    

 

·          The State Transit Authority advising residents adjacent to the new bus stops prior to the installation of the bus stops.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The infrastructure requirements for the implementation of the Eastern Suburbs Better Buses proposal have been investigated and considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

It is considered that the Sydney Buses’ proposal should be supported subject to the recommendations made by the Traffic Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Sydney Buses be advised that the bus route modifications and removal and installation of bus stops as detailed in it’s infrastructure requirements for Eastern Suburbs Better Buses is supported subject to:

 

·          The Bus Zone scheduled for removal in Arden Street in front of Clovelly Public School being supported by Waverley Council.

 

·          The Bus Zone on Carrington Road in front of No. 104 being installed across the frontage of 104A to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The Bus Zones scheduled for installation in Garden Street in front of No’s. 57 and 62 being located as close to Storey Street intersection as possible to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The bus shelter in front of La Perouse Public School in Yarra Road, Phillip Bay being removed at Sydney Buses’ expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.

 

·          The JC Decaux bus shelter in front of No.5 Botany Street, Randwick being removed and relocated at Sydney Buses’ expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.  (Council officers will liaise with JC Decaux for the relocation of this bus shelter to an appropriate site in accordance with the contractual agreement).

 

·          The Bus Zones being installed in Kennedy Street between Bow Lane and Meeks St being located near No’s 43 to 45 Meeks Street and south of the Post Office Box.

 

·          The bus stops in Prince Edward Street, Malabar scheduled for removal being retained.

 

·          Sydney Buses funding the necessary modifications of the roundabout at the intersection of Arden Street and Clovelly Road for the proposed alteration of the Route 353 bus service.

 

·          The State Transit Authority advising residents adjacent to the new bus stops prior to the installation of the new bus stops.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 26/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROHIBITING ADVERTISING MATERIAL ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0045

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 February 2002, Council resolved vide Resolution 33 that, as a matter of urgency, a report be prepared to form part of the RCC Local Environment Plan to prohibit placing posters or advertising material on private or public property eg, Telegraph poles, shop building facades.

 

The LGSA has previously examined this issue in the context of advertising on parked trailers.  The Minister for Local Government advised on 10 February 2000 that control of outdoor advertising is dealt with under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1993 and that a local council can require development consent under the EP&A Act 1979.   If a consent is not obtained for the advertisement, Order 5 may be given under s.121B of the Act may be given using due procedure.  A person who fails to comply with Order 5 may be dealt with for a breach.   The Minister referred the LGSA to the Minister for Planning for any further representation.

 

The then Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (now Planning NSW) also investigated the feasibility of regulating billposters on telegraph poles and was directed to the provisions of the Roads Act 1993.   It is understood that giving effect to enforcement under this legislation would have been unworkable.  Around this time, representation to the Government by the music industry on the premise that billposters promoted the music industry, compelled the Minister to not proceed further with enforcement measures.

 

Amendments to enforce litter control under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 were announced in April 2000.   In training sessions for local government, the EPA made it clear that the amendments did not extend to billposters, since this already came under councils’ planning controls for outdoor advertising. 

 

As defined in the RCC Local Environment Plan 1998, “outdoor advertising means the use of a building or place for display of symbols, messages or devices for promotional purposes or for conveying information, instructions, directions or the like, whether or not the display involves the erection of a structure.” 

 

ISSUES:

 

Enforcement by planning instruments

 

Under the LEP 1998, outdoor advertising is permissible subject to consent in all zones, or may be an exempt development under the DCP on Exempt and Complying Development.  Billposters on poles or buildings would require development approval under the LEP. Council’s Outdoor Advertising DCP provides requirements, which would in effect, prohibit billposters.

 

Given the clandestine nature of billposting, it would be highly unlikely that an applicant would identify itself as an organisation and that such an application would ever be realised.    If there were a policy of perpetual refusal, then billposting companies would not bother to submit applications.   The burden of proof of a breach of the DCP would be problematic.  The property owner may be required to have specific signage banning billposters, as a precondition for taking action against a person fixing a billposter. 

 

The State Government has passed a State Environment Planning Policy SEPP No.64 – Advertising and Signage (16 March 2001), introduced in response to community concern over some forms of outdoor advertising.  The SEPP places increased requirements for better quality advertising.   It does not however, directly prohibit billposters.

 

Enforcement by occupational health and safety regulation

 

The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001, made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, defines the place of work as meaning the premises where persons work.   Premises includes any place and in particular includes any land, therefore since the Regulation applies to all places of work, any person working on public land is subject to the jurisdiction of the local authority.

 

Council has currently been exercising its responsibility for the compliance by authorised contractors with the OHS Regulation 2001.   Contractors have been required to submit safe working procedures and safety management plans for working in the public place, for approval by the Council.

 

A person fixing a billposter to a place is an employee or self-employed person, subject to the provisions of the OHS Regulation 2001, but works in the public place without authorisation from the local authority.   This means that the employee and the billposter company may be in breach of the OHS Regulation 2001.  This may also expose the local authority to risk both in its compliance with the OHS Regulation 2001 and in public liability for the acts of unauthorised billposter operators in the public place.

 

By public notice, Council could require billposting companies to submit safe working procedures and safety management plans.  This would not condone billposting activity, but put these companies on notice that without such compliance, they may be subject to prosecution under the OHS Act 2000 and that their Workers Compensation insurance may be voided by an insurer if they work in a public place without authorisation. 

 

By engaging State OHS legislation and WorkCover as a State Government enforcement agency, Council could enable the risk to be managed and shared between State and Local Government, particularly since the State Government has not been able to previously resolve the enforcement of billposters.     Legal advice would also need to be sought on this approach in relation to linking the LEP and the approval of an activity.

 

Enforcement by environmental regulation and stormwater management

 

There is an increasing trend towards vandalism of posters and this is attributed to competition between owners of venues.  Residents have also taken their own vigilante action and this usually results in the complete removal of the poster from the pole.  In some cases the poster is left on the ground, but it is difficult to determine whether this is a billposter removing an old poster or a frustrated resident.

 

Those posters that are vandalised have usually been slashed twice diagonally, rendering the poster unreadable.   This demonstrates that billpostering is becoming an ineffective method of advertising and a gradual method of littering.  

 

Rainfall also softens the adhesive tape and the poster disintegrates into a shredded pulpy mass that can be washed into the stormwater drainage.   Blockage of stormwater drainage also poses the risk of local flooding and exposes the Council to the risk of claims for damage.  Attachment 1 shows photographs depicting the problem.

 

The EPA is currently running a highly visible, multi-media, public education campaign against pollution of our stormwater drainage and receiving waters.   There is a strong case for the EPA to include the degradation of billposters in its campaign to get public support for stronger counter measures based on litter and gradual pollution.

 

The Record of Decisions of the 2001 Local Government Conference records under item 90 – Kogarah:

“That the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 be amended to:

 

1.         Create an offence for affixing advertising materials to structures in public places without permission from council.

2.         That an infringement notice for offence be capable of being served on the person or body occupying the premises or the organisation receiving benefit of the advertisement.”

 

There is merit in this decision and Council should pursue the EPA to include billposters within the provisions of the POEO Act 1997 that regulate advertising material.  There is no difference between an unsecured leaflet blowing into a stormwater drain and an unsecured billposter washed into a stormwater drain.

 

Enforcement by traffic safety measures

Billposters create a side distraction to drivers, contrary to traffic safety principles, which emphasise the reduction of roadside distractions.    In view of the poor quality of many posters, such distractions could contribute to the incidence of rear end collisions.  

 

The use of a traffic safety facility or device fixed to power poles would be a measure to reduce billposters.   This would be in the form of a vertical reflective strip with the embedded wording as shown in the sample below:

 

APPROVED TRAFFIC SAFETY FACILITY – DO NOT COVER OR REMOVE

(INTERFERENCE WITH THIS FACILITY IS AN OFFENCE UNDER THE SECTION 138 OF THE ROADS ACT 1993)

©         Randwick City Council 27 February 2002

 

This idea was first considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee on 12 July 2001 and recommended for referral to the RTA’s Corporate Section for policy approval.   Energy Australia has also approached Council and discussions were held on 28 February 2002 on the commercial development and implementation of this concept.   

 

Energy Australia has given support to the idea, as there is concern over the deterioration of wooden power poles caused by termites breeding behind layers of old posters.

 

Further work is required to have a product provider assess the feasibility, prior to seeking RTA’s approval.   There is also scope for other shareholder interest including motor insurance industry sponsorship and research data from safety agencies such as the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) and the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB).    There is also the potential for a product royalty arrangement between RCC and Energy Australia if the device is feasible and marketable.

 

Action taken by other Local Governments

 

Other Councils take action to remove billposters in daily or periodic street cleaning programs.   While this is an added cost, the use of a cost recovery notice could be subject to legal challenge.  A summary of actions by other councils is shown at Attachment 2.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council needs to focus on the application of the Local Environment Plan 1998 to regulate the activity of billposting, and pursue the application of environmental regulation to prevent billposters from polluting and blocking stormwater drainage.  The four lines of approach outlined above provide Council with a means to deal with illegal advertising, with each element requiring different lead times for development and implementation. 

 

There is a high level of public support for enforcement of the prevention of billpostering that is consistent with Council’s objective of reducing risks to public safety, public property and the environment. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a)         Test the effectiveness of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 to deal with billposters by commencing action to prosecute under the existing provisions of the LEP;

b)         Write to Planning NSW and request that the issue of Billposters be considered by amending State Environment Planning Policy No. 64 and /or other required legislation; and

c)         Pursue the EPA in relation to amending the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 along the lines of the amendment proposed by Kogarah Council.

 

ATTACHMENTS:   

 

1.         Photographs of posters deteriorating after rainfall.

2.         Summary of actions by other local governments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 27/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REFUND OF COUNCIL FUNDS BEING HELD BY SSROC

 

 

DATE:

21 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0065

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Administration and Finance Committee Meeting on 12 March 2002, Council resolved vide Resolution F10, that a report be submitted to the next Ordinary Council Meeting outlining the current situation with respect to Council funds being held by SSROC, which were for membership of the Southern Sydney Waste Board and which should now be refunded to Council.

 

At a meeting of Mayors and General Managers convened by SSWB on 12 July 2001, there was general support for the transfer of some $3 million in funds from the Southern Sydney Waste Board to SSROC.   Randwick put in a dissenting opinion on such a transfer and recommended that funds be refunded to Councils. 

 

Council resolved at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2001 to Request the Minister to refund to this Council the Waste Levies previously collected by the Southern Sydney Waste Boards.   At that stage, the SSWB was preparing a submission to the Minister to ensure that SSWB Levy funds did not get transferred into general State revenue, as provided under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001.

 

The Minister confirmed by letter to the SSWB dated 4 October 2001 that an amount of $1,597,146 would be transferred from the Southern Sydney Waste Board to the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.  The Minister also advised “my office requested that these funds be spent in a manner consistent with the objectives of the new Act and related State Government policies.”   At that time, it was also understood that Resource NSW had secured funding for regional waste projects up to 30 June 2001.

 

ISSUES:

 

Discrepancy in the amount transferred

 

The SSROC Waste Management Group at its first meeting in October 2001, requested SSROC investigate the difference between the amount advised by the SSWB and the amount actually transferred.  SSROC is still pursuing Resource NSW on this matter.

Our analysis is that funds for existing contractual obligations incurred by SSWB were transferred to Resource NSW, under the transitional provisions of the WARR Act 2001, which required all assets and liabilities of former waste boards to be transferred to Resource NSW.  Resource NSW inherited a five-year contract to market compost bins and worm farms, a project worth some $1.4 million per year and the source of objection by many Councils.

 

Reneging on funds by Resource NSW

 

On 6 December 2001, Resource NSW withdrew funding support for the Residual Waste Infrastructure Project.  At a subsequent meeting on 12 February 2002 of the SSROC Waste Management Group with Mr Neil Chapman, Director Programs, Resource NSW and former SSWB officer, it was clearly evident that Resource NSW had no funds to support programs in the current financial year.  

 

Prior to this meeting, Mr Chapman had advised one waste manager that SSROC already had funds to do regional waste projects.   This would have the potential to duplicate Resource NSW programs that are to be funded in the 2002/2003 financial year.   Waste Managers concluded on 12 February 2002 that Resource NSW had withdrawn funds from the regional waste infrastructure project and expected that SSROC would fund projects that should be funded by Resource NSW.  Waste Managers further concluded that there was no compelling case for being “consistent with the requirements of the Minister” nor was there a need to engage a projects officer, as suggested by SSROC, nor was there a need for funds to be centrally retained by SSROC.

 

The SSROC Waste Management Group Convener recommended to the SSROC General Managers Group meeting on 14 February 2002 that they support the return of funds to Councils, which did not preclude contributing to future regional projects on a “just-in-time” basis.  SSROC went to some lengths to refute these conclusions and overturn the recommendation to the SSROC General Managers Group.

 

Randwick City Council subsequently wrote to the SSROC on 21 February 2002, requesting a refund of the amount of $154,193, which is the sum identified in the allocation of funds by councils provided to SSROC by Resource NSW.   There has been no response to this letter at this stage.  Randwick put the case that Council is already undertaking initiatives consistent with the objectives of the WARR Act 2001 and needed the full return of its allocation.   A copy of this letter is shown at Attachment 1.

 

SSROC Meeting 21 February 2002

 

The following recommendations relevant to the fund, were put to the SSROC meeting on 21 February 2002:

 

3.         That SSROC agree to the development of a process to ensure fairness and equity in the ultimate allocation of levy funds.

 

4.         That SSROC strive to maintain the remaining community levy funds over the long term, if possible, to ensure ongoing community benefit.

 

5.         That SSROC endorse the following initial list of criteria for local or regional projects funded by the community levy:

 

i.          Consistency with the requirements of the Minister

ii.          Provide wider benefit (even for projects undertaken by one Council)

iii.         The intellectual property is free to member councils

iv.         Avoid duplication with projects undertaken by Resource NSW

v.         Avoid funding core functions of councils

vi.         Allow for long term as well as short term projects

vii.        Provision of a cost/benefit analysis, and demonstrate “triple bottom line”

benefits

viii.       Opportunity to add value through funding from other sources

 

6.         That SSROC agree to the appointment of a Waste Projects Coordinator, funded from the community levy funds, to oversee the regional waste portfolio; attract further funding for council waste management projects; and establish a process to devolve unspent levy funds currently held by SSROC.

 

The resolution of the meeting adopted the above recommendations and in addition records that Mayor Comino (Woollahra) expressed a contrary view to the President’s support for spending the funds on regional waste programs.  Mayor Comino expressed that the funds should be returned to councils.  “The President noted that Randwick City Council contributed some of the funds from normal revenue, and acknowledged that Randwick may have a case for a pro rata return of funds commensurate with the contribution from revenue.”

 

The amount that was paid by Randwick City Council in the first year of the SSWB Levy from the general rates base was 38.9% of total contributions over three financial years, which is $59,981 of the $154,193 allocated to Randwick.   There is a strong case for an immediate refund of this amount to the general rates base.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council write to the SSROC requesting the refund of the amount that was paid to the SSWB from the general rates base and the refund of the remaining amount that has been spent on projects consistent with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery act 2001.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of letter to SSROC dated 21 February ,2002

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

 

98/S/0665

 

 

21 February 2002

 

 

 

Ms Melissa Gibbs

Executive Director

Southern Sydney Regional

Organisation of Councils

PO Box 331

MASCOT   NSW   1480

 

 

Dear Ms Gibbs

 

REFUND OF WASTE LEVIES PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED BY

SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE BOARD (SSWB)

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 24 July 2001, Council resolved to

 

“Request the Minister to refund to his Council the Waste Levies previously

collected by the Southern Sydney Waste Board.”

 

Council did not make representation to the Minister at the time, as there was an assurance from the SSWB that the Minister would allow the funds to be retained and there was a subsequent issue with the actual amount of funds transferred.

 

On 4 October 2001, the Minister wrote to the SSWB General Manager, agreeing to the mechanism for transferring the funds to an account held by SSROC, for expenditure “in a manner consistent with the objectives of the new Act and related State Government policies”.   These related policies include obligations to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, in relation to the reduction of waste that has the potential to cause environmental harm.

 

The Minister also advised that Resource NSW should provide any assistance asked for by the region’s councils in developing proposals on regional initiatives.   The major activities at that time were the Regional Waste Infrastructure Project and the Regional Kerbside Recyclables Project.   On the first project, Resource NSW withdrew funding support on 7 December 2001 and the CEO Resource NSW has indicated that it will no longer have a pivotal contractual role in regional projects.   

 

The Minister also advised that it is a matter for SSROC and its constituent councils to ensure that the funds are spent in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.    

 

Randwick City Council has undertaken a number of initiatives, consistent with the objectives of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, namely:

 

·          Implementation of an Illegal Dumping Strategy

·          Establishment and equipping of a Litter Patrol

·          Production of promotional material on dumping such as fridge magnets and postcards

·          Production of enforcement material such as banner tape and stickers

·          Consultancy study into the viability of Council’s green waste recycling site

·          Development of creative material for community education on alternative waste technologies

·          Introduction of a paper & cardboard collection service for commercial waste generators and residential excess recycling

·          Maintenance of a Waste hotline for new initiatives such as the donation of unwanted vehicles to charity and the paper/cardboard collection service

·          Litter abatement measures such as serviced ashtrays at peak transit locations and personal ashtrays for handout by Environment and Litter Patrol Officers

 

These initiatives have been well received by the EPA and other Councils.  It is evident that Resource NSW does not have funds for rebating councils’ initiatives in the current financial year.   Should there be a compelling case for projects of a regional nature, Council would be willing to participate on a pro-rata and “just-in-time” funding basis.

 

Randwick City Council requests that the amount of $154,193 allocated to Randwick in the advice sent to SSROC by the SSWB, be returned to Randwick and that any subsequent amount that may arise from the adjustment of the funds transferred, be also returned to Randwick City Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Gordon Messiter,

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 4/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0661

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Council annually reviews its Internal Reporting System and Policy in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act.

 

ISSUES:

 

Clause 12 of the Internal Reporting System, Policy No. 1.04.04, provides that the policy shall be reviewed annually to ensure that it meets the object of the legislation and facilitates the making of disclosures under the Act.

 

As detailed in the Policy, Randwick Council does not tolerate corrupt conduct, maladministration or serious and substantial waste of public money.  The Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Protected Disclosures Act.  It recognises the value and importance of contributions of staff to enhance administrative and management practices and strongly supports disclosures being made by staff without any detrimental action in reprisal for making the disclosures.

 

The network of nominated disclosure officers is significant and includes the General Manager, the Public Officer, all Department Heads, all Managers, the E.E.O.

Co-ordinator and all members of the Council’s Joint Consultative Committee.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst no disclosures have been made under the Council’s Internal Reporting System during the past year, it is considered that the Policy does meet the objects of the legislation and does facilitate the making of disclosures, should the need for such arise.  Disclosure ability is enhanced by the number of nominated disclosure officers as detailed in the Policy.

 

In addition, periodic articles are placed in the Staff Newsletter to refresh employees’ memories of the existence of the System.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Governance, Management and Information Services’ Report, reviewing the Internal Reporting System – Protected Disclosures Act, in accordance with Clause 12 of Council’s Policy No. 1.04.04, be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 12/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Development Application No.1222/2001 for 10 Liguria Street, South Coogee

 

 

DATE:

18 March, 2002

FILE NO:

DA1222/2001

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The subject application, to carry out alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing single storey dwelling house, including a new front garage with terrace over, was considered by Council at the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting held on 12 March 2002 when it was resolved:

 

That this application be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting to allow an examination of the appropriateness of the conditions that have been placed on this application and to reconsider the issues raised by the objector to the application.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has come to the Department’s attention that errors of reference were made in Condition No.2 c. of the Acting Director’s recommendation to the March 12 Health Building and Planning Committee on the application. The last sentence of the condition should read that the balcony area (and pergola) adjoining the front of the proposed TV room on the first floor is to be reduced in depth to a maximum 2.0m as referred to in the body of the original report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The recommendation for approval below is as per the original recommendation to the March 12 Health Building and Planning Committee, subject to the correction to Condition No.2.c stated above.

 

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 1222/2001 for Alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house, including new front garage with terrace over at 10 Liguria Street, South Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising 3 sheets with Drawing Nos 01/055-Sheets 1 to 3, dated 20 December 2001 and received by Council on 21 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.         In order to minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential properties and the streetscape:

 

a.         The rear first floor terrace is to be set back a minimum 1.5m from the side walls of the building and reduced in depth to a maximum 2.5metres, and 1.8m high privacy screens are to be provided to the side elevations of the terrace;

 

b.         The proposed window ‘W17’ is to be fixed and obscurely glazed;

 

c.         That part of the proposed front first floor balcony which adjoins the proposed bedroom is to be deleted and the gable roof covering including parapet and column supports are to be lowered to form a roof covering to the ground floor porch area below, not to exceeding a maximum RL of 105.62. The remaining balcony area (and pergola over) adjoining the front of the proposed TV room is to be reduced in depth to a maximum 2.0m;

 

d.         The sliding door (SD3) to the proposed front, first floor bedroom is to be replaced by a window having a standard minimum sill height of 1.0 metres; and

 

e.         The proposed garage opening is to be set back a minimum 1.0m from the eastern side boundary of the site and the proposed landscaping strip on the eastern side of the driveway is to be increased in width to 1.0 metre. The width of the driveway shall not exceed 3.0 metres.   

 

f.          Revised details are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Environment prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

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 street scape.

 

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.

 

4.         The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

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.         All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rain water heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

8.         Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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:

 

9.         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 satisfy the relevant pollution control criteria and to maintain reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity to the locality:

 

10.       There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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 group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

13.       A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

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:

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

           

17.       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.

           

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

25.       Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

26.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

27.       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:

 

28.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to 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:

 

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

 

a)   Reconstruct and extend the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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 (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage. The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

33.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

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.       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.          

 

Advisory Conditions

 

1.         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:

 

Development Application Report dated 22 February 2002

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

22 February, 2002

FILE NO:

DA1222/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house, including new front garage with terrace over

PROPERTY:

 10 Liguria Street, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archman Design Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, as a family member of the property owners is an employee of Council.

 

The estimated cost of the development is $150,000.

 

The application was notified to surrounding property owners and two objections to the proposal were received. The main concerns raised relate to overlooking/loss of privacy and views, and building height, bulk and setbacks.

 

The main issues are considered to be privacy and overlooking, and view impacts.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions addressing privacy, overshadowing, visual bulk and view loss issues. 

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing single storey dwelling house to create a four bedroom dwelling with open plan living lounge and dining areas. At the rear first floor level is proposed a large terrace off the main bedroom. To the front of the existing building is proposed a new garage with terrace over, a ground floor entry porch and a first floor balcony off a proposed TV room and bedroom. New 1500mm high front fencing is also proposed.

 

The face brickwork of the existing building and  the proposed additions are to be rendered and painted.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of upper Liguria Street, South Coogee. The site is regular shaped, with a frontage to Liguria Street of 9.145m, a depth of 40.235m and site area 367.95m2 The site has a fall from rear to front boundaries of about 3.5 metres.

 

Adjoining to the east is a single storey brick dwelling house with front brick garage at No.12 Liguria Street. Adjoining to the west is an elevated two-storey dwelling house with front terrace with garage under at No.6 Liguria Street.

 

Adjoining to the rear are dwelling houses with frontage to Edgecliff Avenue.

 

Development in Liguria Street comprises a mix of single and two storey dwelling houses.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

72/00867/BZ      Extensions. Approved 1972.   

93/00360/DZ      Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.

Approved 29/9/93

 

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 M Lockyer

6 Liguria Street

SOUTH COOGEE 2034

 

Concerns:

 

-           proposal exceeds preferred FSR solution.

-           building bulk and scale

-           impact on water views

-           proposal does not meet preferred solutions for building setbacks from front, side and rear boundaries

-           loss of light/overshadowing to side windows and rear yard

-           loss of privacy/overlooking

-           overdevelopment

 

H and D Allaous

5 Edgecliff Avenue

SOUTH COOGEE 2034

 

Concerns:

 

-          proposal exceeds FSR solution

-          building bulk and scale

-          proposal does not meet preferred solutions for building setbacks from front, side and rear boundaries

-          overlooking from rear first floor terrace

 

The concerns/issues raised in the above submissions are addressed under Section 8 of the report.

 

6.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the site is less than 4000sq.m in area.

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 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:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Satisfactory

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

N/A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

N/A

 

7.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan – 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 (Nat hers) rating of 3.5 stars.

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

·      Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

·      Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

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

N/A. The proposal involves additions to an existing dwelling only.

 

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS (Cont.)

·      Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

P2  Orientation and design maximises solar access to living areas and open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

P4  Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

P5 Building materials, appliances minimise  energy requirements.

 

P6  External clothes drying area available.

 

P7  Landscape design assists microclimate management.

 

P8  Windows sized to reduce summer heat and permit winter sun.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory.

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

N/A. No solar collectors on adjoining buildings affected.

 

Complies. Conditions of consent will further improve solar access to neighbouring properties, esp. No.6 Liguria Street.

 

 

Complies. Conditions of consent will further improve solar access to neighbouring properties, esp. No.6 Liguria Street.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies via condition of consent.

 

Satisfactory. No changes proposed to existing landscaped areas within rear yard. Landscaping proposed to either side of  proposed entry stair and driveway within front yard.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

P5  Planting will not obscure or obstruct dwelling entries or personal safety.

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

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.

Proposed 41%. Complies.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies via conditions of consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A.

 

 

Satisfactory.

 

 

Satisfactory.

 

 

 

 

Proposed-27.8%.

Complies.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

 

-0.67:1 excluding balconies/terraces

 

-0.90:1 including balconies/terraces.

Does not meet preferred FSR solution; however, performance requirement will be satisfactorily met via conditions of consent. See Section 8.1.1 of report.

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 portion of a semi is confined within an existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

Maximum 7.2m to east side elevation/ 8.7m to proposed first floor balcony roof gable on street elevation.

Proposal does not meet preferred solution; however;performance requirement will be satisfactorily met. See Section 8.1.2 of report.

 

Rear first floor terrace does not meet preferred solution; however, performance requirements will be satisfactorily met via conditions of consent. See Section 8.1.1 of  report.

 

Satisfactory.

 

 

Complies.

 

Minor excavation for proposed garage within 900mm of eastern side boundary. Proposal therefore does not meet preferred solution; however, performance requirement will be satisfactorily met.

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A.

 

 

 

 

 

Performance requirement will be satisfactorily met via conditions of consent. See Section 8.1.6 of report.

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.

 

 

 

Front ground floor porch and first floor balcony encroaches on dominant setback from the street frontage. Performance requirement will be satisfactorily met via condition of consent.

 

Rear setback to proposed first floor rear terrace approx.13.0m

Complies.

 

 

Proposed front garage:

 

-Nil setback from eastern side boundary

 

Dwelling:

 

-955mm from eastern side boundary at existing ground and proposed first floor level.

 

-1050mm from western side boundary at existing ground and proposed first floor level.

 

Proposal does not meet preferred solution; however, performance requirement will be satisfactorily met via conditions of consent. See Section 8.1.3 of report.

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.

 

 

Proposal does not meet preferred solution; however, performance requirement will be satisfactorily met via conditions of consent. See Section 8.1.4 of report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

As per BCA requirements.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies via condition of consent.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

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 accessways 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 setback.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Complies via condition of consent.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not meet preferred solution ; however, performance requirement will be met. See Section 8.1.7 of report.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A.

 

 

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).

 

Proposed max.1.6m high rendered brick pier and metal infill fence and gates.

 

Complies.

 

8.         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.

 

8.1       Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The proposal satisfactorily meets all relevant preferred solutions of the DCP with the exception of the matters that are identified and addressed below.

 

8.1.1    Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6:1 applies. The calculated FSR of the proposal is 0.90:1 including the proposed balcony/terrace areas, which exceed a total of 40sq.m in area and are therefore included as floor space. If the proposed balconies/terrace areas were excluded, the FSR would be 0.67:1.

 

Although the proposal does not meet the preferred FSR solution of the DCP, it is generally compatible in bulk, scale and character with existing development in the street. The proposed rear, first floor terrace and associated privacy screens, however, contributes significant additional visual bulk to the rear of the existing building and would adversely impact upon the visual amenity and privacy of neighbouring residential properties. In order to reduce the visual impact of the terrace and privacy screens on the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties to an acceptable level, it is recommended that the terrace be reduced in depth to a maximum 2.5m and be set back a minimum 1.5m from the side walls of the existing building.

 

The proposed front first floor balcony extends significantly forward of the front alignments of the existing and neighbouring dwellings. It is recommended that the balcony area to the front of the proposed bedroom be deleted and the remaining balcony area to the front of the proposed TV room be reduced in depth to a maximum 2 metres.

 

8.1.2    Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and are compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m.

 

The proposal building will have a maximum wall height of 7.2m at its lower, south-eastern corner. The average wall height on this elevation however is only 6.7m and the departure from the 7.0m maximum wall height at this point is due to the natural slope to the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

The proposed gable end wall to the first floor balcony would present a wall height of 8.7m to the street, which is considered to be excessive due to its reduced setback from the street frontage. The detailing of the proposed first floor balcony also expresses a vertical proportion, which further accentuates the visual height of the building as viewed from the street frontage. Deleting the western part of the first floor balcony and reducing the depth of the eastern part of the balcony to a maximum 2.0m as previously recommended, would satisfactorily overcome this concern.

 

The proposed development is compatible in scale with existing two storey building forms in the street and subject to reductions in size of the proposed first floor rear terrace and front balcony as previously recommended, the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the street and neighbouring properties would be acceptable.

 

The existing and proposed brickwork of the building is to be cement rendered and painted, with concrete roof tiling, powder coated, aluminium framed windows, timber pergolas and doors being proposed. These materials and external finishes and the proposed hipped roof forms are compatible with existing buildings in the streetscape and will not adversely affect the aesthetic appearance of the foreshore scenic protection area.  

 

The relevant performance requirements in relation to Height Form and Materials will be satisfactorily met.

 

8.1.3    Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The first floor side boundary setbacks are proposed to match those existing at ground floor level, being 1050mm from the western side boundary and 955mm from the eastern side boundary.

 

On the western side, the separation distance between the proposed building and the adjacent wall of No.6 Liguria Street is approximately 3.0m and the dwelling and property at No.6 is elevated above that of No.10 by approximately 1.5 metres. Adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air will be maintained to No.6 in accordance with the performance requirement.

 

On the eastern side, the main living areas of the dwelling at No.12 Liguria Street are orientated to the front and rear of the dwelling, and there is sufficient separation between the proposed building and No.12 to maintain adequate levels of natural light and ventilation to windows openings in the adjacent side wall of No.12.

 

The performance requirements of the DCP in this regard will be satisfactorily met.

 

Subject to the proposed front, first floor balcony being reduced in size as previously recommended, the front setbacks of the proposal would be compatible with neighbouring buildings in the streetscape.

 

8.1.4    Visual & 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 first floor window openings in the western side wall of the proposed building are to  a bathroom, ensuite and walk in robe only and will not result in any significant adverse overlooking of the adjoining dwelling at No.6 Liguria Street. In order to minimise any impact on No.6, it is recommended that the proposed full-height window ‘W17’ to the walk in robe should be fixed and obscurely glazed.

 

The east facing window openings of the proposed building do not adversely impact on the privacy of No.12 Liguria Street due to their proposed positioning within the wall at ground floor level and their elevation above No.12 at first floor level.

 

The proposed rear terrace is in excess of 30sq.m in area and provides significant opportunity for adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining properties due to its potential to accommodate a large number of people. It is recommended that the terrace be reduced in depth to a maximum 2.5m and set back a minimum 1.5m from the side walls of the building so as to reduce the potential for adverse privacy impacts on neighbouring properties to an acceptable level. It is considered that subject to the proposed amendments the proposal will satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP in relation to Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

 

8.1.5    Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

 

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.

 

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.  

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application have been assessed. True north is actually slightly to the west of the north point indicated in the shadow diagram. Allowing for this minor adjustment and an assessment of the shadow  impact indicates that the solar access standards of the DCP in relation to neighbouring properties will be met. The recommended reduction in the size of the rear first floor terrace (and therefore the extent of the privacy screens along its side elevation) will further reduce the shadowing impact of the proposal.  

 

8.1.6    Views

 

Significant south-easterly views of the ocean and the southern headland of Lurline Bay are available from the front ground floor terrace area and first floor windows of the existing two-storey dwelling house at No.6 Liguria Street.  The proposed first floor balcony, which projects beyond the front alignments of the adjoining dwellings, will encroach significantly on this view from the first floor, front bedroom windows and adjoining sunroom of No.6 Liguria Street. The deletion of the eastern part of the balcony and the reduction in depth of the western part of the balcony to a maximum 2.0m as previously recommended, would alleviate the view loss and allow for reasonable view sharing.

 

Distant secondary sea views to the east and north-east over the existing roof area of No.10 Liguria Street are available from first floor, east facing bedroom windows of the dwelling at No.6 Liguria Street. The proposed first floor additions will result in the loss of these views. This is considered acceptable given the nature and circumstances of the view from these locations. The retention of this view would require the existing dwelling at No.10 Liguria Street to remain single storey, which would unreasonably restrict the development potential of the site. The provision of a flat roof in lieu of the proposed hipped roof form of the first floor addition would not retain this view.

 

It is considered that the proposal will meet the performance requirement of the DCP in relation to view sharing.

 

8.1.7    Garages & Driveways

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scape, and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions include that driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment.

 

The proposed front garage and terrace over occupies approximately 45% of the site width and is setback approximately 2.9m from the street alignment. This is considered acceptable as the front garages and terraces of the adjoining and other nearby dwellings in the streetscape are constructed to the street alignment and cover the full width of their site frontages. It is recommended, however, that the proposed driveway and garage opening be reduced in width to achieve a minimum 1.0m set back from the eastern side boundary of the site, so as to increase the provision for soft landscaping along that boundary.

 

The proposal will meet the relevant performance requirements of the DCP in relation to Garages and Driveways.

 

8.2       Resident Submissions

 

Most of the concerns/issues raised in resident submissions have been previously addressed. Those outstanding are identified and addressed below.

 

-           overdevelopment

 

Comment:

 

Subject to the reductions in the size of the rear first floor terrace and front first floor balcony as previously recommended, the proposal would not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

 

-           overlooking of No.5 Edgecliff Avenue from rear first floor terrace

 

Comment:

 

The proposed rear first floor terrace adjoins a bedroom only and is recommended to be significantly curtailed in size, such that the terrace would be set back some 15 metres from the rear boundary with No.5 Edgecliff Avenue. Consequently, no significant adverse overlooking will be occasioned to that property.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

Having regard to the overall merits of the proposal and subject to the proposed amendments in relation to the rear first floor terrace and front balcony areas to address issues of privacy, overshadowing, visual bulk and view loss, it is considered that the application should be supported by Council.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to 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 1222/2001 for Alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house, including new front garage with terrace over at 10 Liguria Street, South Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising 3 sheets with Drawing Nos 01/055-Sheets 1 to 3, dated 20 December 2001 and received by Council on 21 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.         In order to minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential properties and the streetscape:

 

a.         The rear first floor terrace is to be set back a minimum 1.5m from the side walls of the building and reduced in depth to a maximum 2.5metres, and 1.8m high privacy screens are to be provided to the side elevations of the terrace;

 

b.         The proposed window ‘W17’ is to be fixed and obscurely glazed;

 

c.         That part of the proposed front first floor balcony which adjoins the proposed bedroom is to be deleted and the gable roof covering  including parapet and column supports are to be lowered to form a roof covering to the ground floor porch area below, not to exceeding a maximum RL of 105.62. The remaining balcony area (and pergola over) adjoining the front of the proposed TV room is to be reduced in depth to a maximum 2.5m;

 

d.         The sliding door (SD3) to the proposed front, first floor bedroom is to be replaced by a window having a standard minimum sill height of 1.0 metres; and

 

e.         The proposed garage opening is to be set back a minimum 1.0m from the eastern side boundary of the site and the proposed landscaping strip on the eastern side of the driveway is to be increased in width to 1.0 metre. The width of the driveway shall not exceed 3.0 metres.   

 

f.          Revised details are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Environment prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

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 street scape.

 

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.

 

4.         The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

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.         All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rain water heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

8.         Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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:

 

9.         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 satisfy the relevant pollution control criteria and to maintain reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity to the locality:

 

10.       There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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 group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

13.       A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

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:

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

           

17.       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.

           

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

25.       Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

26.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

27.       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:

 

28.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to 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:

 

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

 

a)   Reconstruct and extend the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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 (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage. The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

33.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

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.       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.          

Advisory Conditions

 

1.         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 configurations

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER






 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 13/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AMENDED FEES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT

 

DATE:

20 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1416

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting of 23rd October 2001 Council resolved to revise and exhibit a draft revised Statement of Fees and Charges 2001/2001 that incorporated the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2001. A copy of the Regulation Amendments is attached.

 

ISSUES:

 

The new fee structure was advertised during January and February 2002. No submissions were received.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2001 now needs to be adopted by Council so that the Statement of Fees and Charges can be amended in final form to accommodate the revisions.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

That it is appropriate that Council adopt the new fees prescribed in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2001 (attached) and that the Statement of Fees and Charges in hard copy and electronic forms be amended accordingly

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That Council adopt the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2001 and

 

B.         That the Statement of Fees and Charges in hard copy and electronic forms be amended accordingly

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

EP&A AMENDMENT (FEES) REGULATION 2001

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LISA NEWELL

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

CO-ORDINATOR ASSESSMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 









MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillors M. Daley and A. White – Matraville Commercial Precinct.  (98/S/1240)(3)

 

That a report be prepared on possible planning measures which may be effected to ensure the continued viability of the Matraville Commercial Precinct.

 

11.2          By Councillor M. Whitehead – Footpath, McDougall Street, Kensington.  (R/0483/01)

 

That a report be brought to the next meeting of Randwick City Council:

 

·                    Regarding the current state of the footpath on the western side of McDougall Street, Kensington;

·                    Outlining the initiatives this Council will undertake to remedy the dangerous situation that exists there; and

·                    Making recommendations to Council of an appropriate time frame within which this urgently required work be done.

 

11.3          By Councillor M. Whitehead – Illegal Footpath Parking.  (98/S/0401)

 

That a report be brought to the next meeting of Randwick City Council from the appropriate department, outlining the steps it will take to eliminate the practice of illegal footpath parking which jeopardises the safety of our citizens including the elderly, mothers with young children in prams and strollers, and toddlers, those under 12 years of age legally riding bicycles on footpaths and the disabled including those in wheelchairs and the sight impaired.

 

11.4          By Councillor C. Matthews – Violence in vicinity of Yarra Bay.  (98/S/3812)

 

That this Council write to the Minister for Police, Mr Michael Costa, advising him of the youth violence problems presently being encountered in the Yarra Bay area and, in particular, in the vicinity of the Yarra Bay Sailing Club and request that the area receive a greater Police patrol presence, particularly at night and in the early morning.

 

11.5          By Councillor C. Matthews – Dead Trees in Byrne Crescent, Maroubra.  (98/S/1706)(3)

 

That this Council support the Federal Member for Kingsford-Smith, Mr Laurie Brereton, in asking the Federal Government to remove all dead trees from the Anzac Rifle Range which are affecting the residents in Byrne Crescent, Maroubra as these trees are a fire hazard and a harbourage for vermin.

 

11.6          By Councillor C. Matthews – Environmental Vandalism at Malabar Pool.  (98/S/2703)

 

That in all instances, such as the environmental vandalism which took place at the Malabar Pool, all South Ward Councillors be notified by either the Mayor’s office or the relevant department heads so that a joint inspection of the site can be arranged for these Councillors.

 

11.7          By Councillor C. Matthews – Installation of a Boom Gate at Malabar Pool.  (98/S/2073)

 

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of installing a boom gate, which would be closed at night by Council’s Rangers, or other suitable security devices (cameras etc) and which would prevent environmental vandalism occurring at Malabar Pool in the future.

 

11.8          By Councillor P. Schick – Cigarette Butt Disposal Units to be Installed.  (98/S/3233)

 

That, due to the recent State Government Legislation of “No Smoking” in restaurants and enclosed public areas, and the fact that there has been an increase of disgarding cigarette butts onto public footpaths, a report be prepared for Council to address this issue, including the compulsory installation of a cigarette butt disposal unit by proprietors outside each of their premises.

 

11.9          By Councillor M. Matson –Refugees and Children in Detention.  (98/S/0670)

 

That following discussions with the Mayor, General Manager and Chilout, that this Council looks at displaying a banner stating either that, this Council welcomes refugees or that children do not belong in detention.

 

11.10      By Councillor M. Matson – Opposition to Howard Government’s Airport Privatisation.  (98/S/0033)(4)

 

That, on behalf of the Council, the Mayor will sign the petition presented at this meeting that calls on the Commonwealth House of Representatives to halt the privatisation of Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport, and to repeal the sections of the Airports’ Act which currently permits these sales.

 

11.11      By Councillor J. Greenwood – Container Deposit Legislation. (98/S/1773)

 

That Council:

 

·                    Notes that the final report of the Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales, released on 28th February, 2002, concludes that the introduction of container deposit legislation in NSW would create jobs and produce major economic benefit of $70-100 million per year;

·                    Calls on the State Government to implement the recommendations of the report;

·                    Writes to the Minister for the Environment and the Premier concerning the above; and

·                    Officers publicise the above by issuing a press release as soon as possible and preparing an article for the next issue of Regarding Randwick Matters.

 

 

11.12      By Councillor J. Greenwood and M. Matson – Vegetation maintenance in Arthur Byrne Reserve.  (98/S/1116)

 

That Council:

 

a)                  Immediately suspends all tree pruning and/or removal in Arthur Byrne Reserve;

b)                  Undertakes a review of the vegetation management plans/maintenance regime for this reserve and that this review include consultation with the community of South Maroubra; and

c)                  Undertakes a review of the mix of species of any species of any future plantings so that they best meet the range of community needs whilst maintaining the indigenous integrity of the ecological mix of species to be established and maintained in the Reserve.

 

11.13      By Councillor M. Whitehead – Design Plan for the Up-grading of Southern Cross, Kingsford.  (R/0321/01)

 

That the appropriate officers of Randwick City Council prepare a design plan for the up-grading of Southern Cross Close, Kingsford and that this work be included in the 2002-2003 budget.

 

11.14      By Councillor M. Whitehead – Mt Sinai College.  (P/002225)

 

That the appropriate officers of Randwick City Council prepare a report for the next Council Meeting on those matters, the enforcement of which are Council’s responsibility, raised by local residents of the area around Mt Sinai College.

 

In particular:-

 

·                    Alleged operation of a pre-school which is outside the approved two-stream primary school;

·                    Installation of playground equipment in December, 2001 and January, 2002 in school grounds along Snape Street frontage;

·                    Compliance, in construction of paved surfaces, with materials used for the acoustic assessment; and

·                    Compliance with the traffic management plan for Snape Street, Hannan Street and  pick-up/set down point within school grounds.