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

 

19th April, 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, 23RD APRIL, 2002 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH APRIL, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 23/2002 - USE OF DAIS AND ERECTION OF BANNER - MARCELLIN COLLEGE FETE.

2

 

5.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 24/2002 - USE OF CLOVELLY BAY - SWIM FOR A WISH EVENT.

3

5.3

MAYORAL MINUTE 25/2002 - BANNER ACROSS COOGEE BAY ROAD - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE.

4

5.4

MAYORAL MINUTE 26/2002 - RSPCA - MILLION PAWS WALK - REQUEST FOR USE OF COUNCIL STAGE.

5

 

 

6           Report of Committee

 

6.1                        

REPORT OF THE CIVIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

6

 


 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 6/2002 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

7

 

 

8           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 35/2002 - KINGSFORD MARKETS SITE.

9

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 36/2002 - BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING.

11

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 37/2002 - MAROUBRA BEACH PARKING.

13

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 38/2002  - NEPTUNE STREET, COOGEE.

16

 

8.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 39/2002 - SKATE PARK FACILITY MAROUBRA BEACH.

20

 

8.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 40/2002 - STORMWATER ISSUES COOGEE BEACH.

22

 

8.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 41/2002 - MAINTENANCE TO THE SOUTH COOGEE ESTATE AREA.

24

 

8.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 42/2002 - TENDER 03/02 - PLANT AND EQUIPMENT.

27

 

8.9                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 44/2002 - TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND STRATEGIES.

32

 

8.10                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 45/2002 TREE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR.

46

 

 

9           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 12/2002 - DOUBTFUL DEBTS - APPROVAL TO WRITE OFF.

48

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 15/2002 - COUNCIL'S INDUCTION COURSE.

50

 

 

10         Director Planning & Environment's Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 17/2002 - 8-10 GROSVENOR STREET, KENSINGTON.  (DEFERRED.)

53

 

10.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 18/2002 - 44-48 COWPER STREET, RANDWICK.

138

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 19/2002 - 54 COOPER STREET, MAROUBRA.

192

 

10.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 20/2002  - SHALOM COLLEGE - 330 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

200

 

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                        

By Councillor C. Matthews – Installation of Playground Equipment in Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park.

218

12.2

By Councillor C. Matthews – Mowing Council’s Nature Strips.

218

12.3

By Councillor M. Matson – Accumulated Impact of Developments.

218

12.4

By Councillor M. Matson – Council Rangers Response to Illegally Blocked Driveways.

218

12.5

By Councillor J. Greenwood – Ethical Investment of Surplus Council Funds.

218

 

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

14.1                        

MAYORAL MINUTE 22/2002 & GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 7/2002 - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES.

219 & 220

 

14.2                       

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES’ REPORT 43/2002 - GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING SITE.

223

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 23/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF DAIS AND ERECTION OF BANNER - MARCELLIN COLLEGE FETE

 

DATE:

28 March, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0096

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A facsimile dated 26 March, 2001, has been received from Marcellin College Parents & Friends’ Association for use of Council’s portable dais and installation/removal of a banner in Coogee Bay Road for the annual Marcellin fete on Saturday 25 May, 2002

ISSUES:

 

It has been practice to loan the stage to charities or non profit organisations on a needs basis.  There is no allocated budget for this type of activity, therefore it is required that Council allocate the funds required for the installation and removal of the banner and dais. The estimate costs involved will be $1,500.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Marcellin College is a non-profit organisation and that costs be allocated to cover cost of installing and dismantling of the banner across Coogee Bay Road and erection the dais in the school grounds for the Annual Fete.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $1,500 to cover the cost of the installation and removal of the dais and banner for the Marcellin Annual Fete to be held on Saturday 25 May, 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

.

 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 24/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF CLOVELLY BAY - SWIM FOR A WISH EVENT

 

 

DATE:

10 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0492

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mrs Suzanne Williams on behalf of the Committee for “Swim for a Wish” event has approached Council by letter of 28 March, 2002, seeking assistance by waiving the fees associated with the Swim, which is scheduled for Sunday 14 April, 2002, at Clovelly Bay.

 

Ms Williams advises that all of the proceeds raised on the day will be donated to the Starlight Foundation. 

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organisations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds in the amount of $175.70 for waiving of the associated fees.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the “Swim for a Wish” is non-profit event and that approval be granted to waive the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $175.70 to cover the fees associated with the “Swim for a Wish” event to be held at Clovelly Bay on Sunday 14 April, 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 25/2002

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

BANNER ACROSS COOGEE BAY ROAD - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE.

 

DATE:

19 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0095

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from Ms Annette Fitzgerald for the Waverley College Art Show Committee seeking assistance in erecting and dismantling a banner across Coogee Bay Road advising of the College’s 27th Annual Art and Craft Show over the weekend of 3,4 and 5 May, 2002.       The Committee advises that the function is purely to raise funds for the school and the Committee requests Council to waive the fees normally required for erecting and dismantling a banner.

 

ISSUES:

 

The cost to Council of erecting and dismantling the banner is $280.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It has been the practice of Council to assist charities or non-profit organizations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds in the amount of $280.00 to cover the cost of staff installing and dismantling the banner.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote to cover the cost of erecting and dismantling the banner across Coogee Bay Road advertising Waverley College’s 27th Annual Art and Craft Show to be held on the weekend of 3,4 and 5 May, 2002, subject to written permission being obtained from the owners of the properties from where the banner is installed in Coogee Bay Road.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


MAYOR'S MINUTE 26/2002

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

RSPCA - MILLION PAWS WALK - REQUEST FOR USE OF COUNCIL STAGE

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0095

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from the RSPCA to use the stage for “The Million Paws Walk” fundraising event in Centennial Park on Sunday 19 May, 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

The cost to Council of allowing the RSPCA to use the stage is estimated to be $1,900        This includes setting up and dismantling the stage before and after the function.

 

I have been informed that any assistance given by Council will be publicly acknowledged.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It has been the practice of Council to loan the stage to charities or non-profit organizations on a needs basis. The RSPCA is a registered charity but is not government funded and as such relies heavily on donations and community aid.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote to cover the cost of lending the stage to the RSPCA for The Million Paws Walk” to be held at Centennial Park on Sunday, 19 May, 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

 

 

 

REPORT OF THE CIVIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 6/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1026/2001, P/002379

 

 

 

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

 

(a)        to the signing a licence agreement between Council and Mr. Raffaele Vizza at 41 Perouse Road, Randwick for the purpose of outdoor dining.

 

(b)        to the signing of a Deed of Release between Council and Woolworths Limited regarding settlement of monies owed to Council for property at 184-186 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council’s Seal to be affixed -

 

(a)        to the signing a licence agreement between Council and Mr. Raffaele Vizza at 41 Perouse Road, Randwick for the purpose of outdoor dining.

 

(b)        to the signing of a Deed of Release between Council and Woolworths Limited regarding settlement of monies owed to Council for property at 184-186 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 35/2002

 

SUBJECT:

KINGSFORD MARKETS SITE

 

DATE:

3 April, 2002

FILE NO:

P/002600

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its Meeting held on 24th April 2001 Council resolved:

 

“That:

 

a)         Discussions continue with the State Transit Authority concerning the future use of the Kingsford Market site;

 

b)         A consultant town planner , mutually agreed upon by Council and the State Transit Authority, be appointed to investigate and report on the highest and best use of the site;

 

c)         Following the receipt of the report from the appointed planner, an application be made by Council and the State Transit Authority to appropriately rezone the land; and

 

d)         The issue of the tenancies and the users be specifically included in any report back to Council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Council’s Planning Department listed a number of consultants experienced in this type of investigation and submissions were invited in July 2001.  A number of submissions were received by the end of August 2001.  These submissions were assessed by Council’s staff with a view to holding further discussions with State Transit Authority staff to finalise the appointment of the consultant.

 

At that time, State Transit advised that their priority was disposal of their King Street site.  As a result, further negotiations were put on hold until the beginning of 2002.

 

The original consultants have been requested to update their submissions and these amended submissions were sent to the State Transit Authority on 20th March, 2002.  It is expected that a response from State Transit Authority is imminent.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The State Transit Authority has been advised that Council is keen to progress this proposal as a priority.  It is expected that a response will be received from State Transit by the end of April or early May following which a consultant will be engaged. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 35/2002 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 36/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

 

 

DATE:

17 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4415   98/S/0178

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of the 26 th of February, 2002 resolved that -

 

“a report be prepared on the situation of the Bowen Library Awning”

 

ISSUES:

 

In February 2001, Council officers were made aware of a problem with the Bowen Library building. Large portions of render were falling off the building. An inspection of the building by Council’s Engineers indicated that small areas of render had delaminated from the building, however larger areas of render were cracked and displacement of some brick panels was noticed.

 

To provide immediate protection from the public temporary fencing was placed around the effected area.

 

Council officers engaged the architectural firm for the Bowen Library HACC facility to investigate the extent of the problem and to incorporate a solution into the overall Bowen Library redesign.

 

The Structural Engineering Report on the facade indicates a structural problem with  increased deflections of the floor slabs resulting in the delamination of the external render.

 

Council officers and the architects had great difficulty in designing a proper protection system that complied with Work Cover requirements. It was considered that a full construction type awning whilst complying with Work Cover requirements would pose an unacceptable burden on the Bowen Library tenants. It was considered that a better solution would be to incorporate the hoarding into the final building design.

 

While this approach prolonged the initial inconvenience to the tenants the median term benefit is that inconvenience due to the erection of hoardings in front of the shops associated with the repair and future renovations of the Library building will be minimised.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The new hoarding was completed in December of last year and whilst it is acknowledged that the project took some time to complete a better solution will ultimately be achieved for Council and its tenants.

 

Council currently has claims for damages from each of the tenants, which are being assessed by Councils legal Counsel. Further investigations are continuing into what action if any Council may be able to take to recover its losses in relation to this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 36/2002 be noted

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 37/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA BEACH PARKING

 

 

DATE:

3 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1531 xr 98/S/0178

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of the 26 th of February 2002 resolved -

 

“that a report be prepared on the parking situation in the vicinity of Maroubra Beach and the concept of induced traffic flowing from major new road systems”

 

ISSUES:

 

As part of the Plan of Management consultation and the Master Plan preparation for Maroubra Beach, parking was considered as an issue. The provision of parking however would always be a compromise between the provision of parking and the provision of open space.

 

The strategy adopted, as part of the Maroubra POM was that parking should not be lost and that other opportunities for increased on street parking would be investigated on an ongoing basis.

 

Prior to the POM works there were 155 car parking spaces in the car park adjacent the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club together with an unspecified number directly adjacent the Club. Parking along the access road was not permitted but illegal parking in this area did occur.  Following the reconstruction of the car park and the construction of the new car park, 176 car spaces were provided together with an overflow car parking area in the grassed area to the west of the southern car park with provision for approximately 100 cars.  Parking along the access road was formalised and provision was made for 36 cars.  The southern part of Arthur Byrne Reserve had a net increase of 57 car spaces together with provision for approximately 100 vehicles in the overflow car park area.

 

The redesign and reconfiguration of Marine Parade with the provision of 90-degree angle parking together with the relocation of bus terminus and car park behind the Maroubra Beach pavilion has resulted in a net reduction of 15 spaces.  Further, as a result of recent Commercial developments at Maroubra Beach an additional 55 parking spaces have been provided in Mons Avenue through the provision of 90 degree angle parking.

 

These recent works have resulted in a net overall increase of 97 car spaces and the provision of an overflow car park for approximately 100 vehicles on special event days.

 

The last summer at Maroubra Beach was particularly busy. Anecdotal evidence suggest that increased patronage of Maroubra Beach was in part due to the opening of the M5 freeway extension. This increased patronage is likely to continue in coming summer seasons placing increased pressure on parking in the Maroubra Beach area.

 

Further opportunities may exist to provide increased parking in the Maroubra Beach area. There would appear to be no opportunities to provide additional public car parks with out substantial loss of open space, but opportunities may exist to provide angle parking similar to that in Mons Avenue in other streets in the Maroubra Beach area.

 

Council has already approved plans from angle parking in Hereward Street, other streets that may be suitable for angle parking include McKeon Street between Fenton Street and Duncan Street, Fenton Street, Fitzgerald Avenue between Malabar Rd and Marine Parade.

 

The feasibility of these proposals will be subject to further studies, public consultation and approval by the traffic committee in due course. It should be noted that whilst concept plans have been drawn up for works in McKeon Street between Fenton and Duncan Street these works are considered to be outside the scope of the POM works

 

There is however, no provision in the current budget or management plan for any of these additional works. It may be appropriate that these works be listed in order of priority in the management plan subject to appropriate design and approval of the traffic committee.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

One of the aim of the POM works is to improve the recreational and amenity value of the Maroubra Beach area, one of the consequences of that is increased patronage of the area, with a resulting increase on parking demand in the area. An investigation of ongoing parking improvements in the area will continue.

 

Parking space availability in the area however has a limit; alternate strategies that will increase turn over of parking and encourage use of public transport will need to be pursued if Maroubra beach is to cope with the increased parking demand in the area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That plans be prepared for the provision of additional angle parking spaces in the Maroubra Beach area and these works be included for consideration in the Council’s 2002-2003 Management Plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 38/2002

 

SUBJECT:

NEPTUNE STREET, COOGEE

 

DATE:

3 April, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0563/02 xr R/0783/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Background

 

Council at its December 2000 meeting resolved -

 

“that a report be prepared by Council officers for consideration by the appropriate committee on the implementation of works that are in the Coogee Beach and Foreshore Plan of Management and when it is hoped that these works will be completed, and further, the report outline any proposals for the for the closure of Wolseley Rd at the intersection of Neptune Street and the implementation of angle parking on the northern side of Neptune Street between Beach Street and Wolseley Rd, Coogee”

 

ISSUES:

 

a.         Dunningham Reserve

Council allocated funds in the 2000 / 2001 budget to commence Plan of Management Works in Dunningham Reserve.  These works included public consultation and the demolition of the Giles Gymnasium structures.  In accordance with the Plan of Management the original portico and the sandstone steps leading to the wave bench at the foot of the northern headland were retained.

 

Extensive design work has been completed on both the portico and the stairs.  In particular, an extensive risk analysis has been carried out in relation to management of the stairs.

 

Final negotiations are being completed with the contractor selected to carry out the initial works in this area with work expected to commence in May 2002.

 

b.         Neptune Street

The Plan of Management provides for the closure of Neptune Street at Wolseley Road to provide for integration of the Neptune Park, Trenerry Reserve and Grant Reserve open space areas.  This will allow for greater access to Neptune Park which is currently isolated from other open space by the road system.  An extract of the plan showing this area is attached (Attachment 1).

 

The proposal also includes the provision of angle parking at the eastern end of Neptune Street which will serve both Wylies Baths and the enhanced park system.

 

The POM has included indicative costs for the works however, detailed design plans have not been completed yet and as such the cost of works are likely to be substantially higher than those indicated in attachment 2.

 

Action has been taken to close the necessary sections of both Neptune Street and Wolseley Road and to add these sections to the reserve system.  To the present time, however, funding has not been provided for the construction and planting works to be carried out.

 

For the reasons listed in the next section, no provision has been made for these works in the 2002 / 2003 budget.

 

Some consideration has been given by staff to the possibility of using the revenue generated by pay parking in the Coogee area to fund this work.  This raises other issues which will be addressed in a future report to Council dealing with pay parking.

 

c.         Capital Maintenance at Coogee

Previous improvements carried out in the Coogee Beachfront area have now reached an age where further capital works need to be carried out to maintain the original quality of finish.  Some deterioration of decorative finishes has occurred and these elements now require replacement.  Large areas of turf also require replacement as a result of the extreme pedestrian traffic loadings applied.  Provision has been made in the draft 2002 / 2003 estimates to fund this essential work

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst the Coogee Beach and foreshore lists works in the vicinity of Trennery Reserve including the closure of Neptune St, Councils priority at this stage has been the demolition and restoration of the Giles Gym headland.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the closure of Neptune Street Coogee be considered for priority funding as part of the Coogee Beach POM works in future budgets.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Extract from Coogee Beach & Foreshore POM.

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 39/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SKATE PARK FACILITY MAROUBRA BEACH

 

 

DATE:

11 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0740

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its April 2001 meeting considered a petition from residents requesting that a skate park facility be made available to youth in the local area. Council subsequently resolved that “the petition be referred to the appropriate committee with a report from the relevant officer”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management provided for the construction of a skate park facility at the southern end of the old car park.  This facility could only be provided once the new car park had been completed.

 

At the time of receipt of the petition design and consultation in relation to the skate park facility was being undertaken.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Construction of the Maroubra Skate Park facility commenced in February of this year and it is anticipated that works will be completed in May 2002. The petitioners should be advised of Council’s actions and thanked for their ongoing support of this important project.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services Report be noted and the petitioners be advised of Council’s actions in providing a Skate Park facility at Maroubra Beach.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 40/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

STORMWATER ISSUES COOGEE BEACH

 

 

DATE:

4 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0640

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 27th March 2001 Council resolved:

 

“That a report be prepared for the Works Committee on the stormwater disposal issue at the northern and southern ends of Coogee Beach and include:

 

(a)        Contacting Mr Turney (phone number) to evaluate and cost his idea for an alternative shower drainage system:

(b)        Evaluating and costing options for preventing both large and small particle pollutants from entering the public pool via stormwater pipe under the Coogee Surf Club building; and

(c)        Evaluating and costing options for extending the northern stormwater pipe exit on Coogee Beach out beyond the surf line.”

 

ISSUES:

 

a.         Shower drainage system

 

Mr Turney was contacted by Council staff in April 2001 and a site meeting was held in May 2001.  Mr Turney raised a number of issues which were essentially maintenance matters.  In particular, the stormwater drain serving Beach Street at the rear of the Surf Club was found to have failed.  This allowed stormwater to discharge into the pool during storm events.  This pit was listed for maintenance and has now been reconstructed.  This work also appears to have addressed the shower drainage issue raised.

 

b.         Particle Pollutants

 

The pipe which discharges at the front of Coogee Surf Club carries particle pollutants from the street system adjacent to the club and some of the paved areas within the reserve.  This system was identified in Council’s Storm Water Management Plan and was listed for the installation of a gross pollution trap.  This trap was installed several years ago.  The system installed is a CDS unit which is efficient in removing both large and small particles.  It is considered that no further action is requires in relation to this catchment system.

 

c.         Northern Stormwater Outfall

 

An initial investigation was carried out to determine options to prevent ponding of stormwater at the outlet of this drainage system.  Stormwater quality has been greatly improved with the construction of gross pollution traps on two of the major catchments which discharge at this point.  This has improved water quality but has not addressed the question of stagnation during periods of low flow.

 

An investigation was also carried out to determine if a disused sewer line which runs along the base of the cliff could be used to drain the dry weather flows from the area of ponding.  Initial investigations indicate that this is not feasible because of the relative levels of the sewer.

 

The investigation and design of a stormwater outfall at this location is beyond the expertise of Council’s staff and funds have not been available to the present time to employ a suitably qualified consultant to carry out the project.  This investigation has been added to the list of projects for which funding is required in future budgets.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The majority of issues raised have been dealt with by Council’s maintenance staff or by implementation of Council’s Storm Water Management Plan for the Coogee catchments.

 

The issue of ponding of stormwater at the northern end of Coogee has not been addressed. However, Council’s maintenance staff have been requested to cut a channel through the sand on a regular basis during the swimming season to minimise the ponding of stagnant water.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 40/2002 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 41/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAINTENANCE TO THE SOUTH COOGEE ESTATE AREA

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2910

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of the 27th November, 2001 resolved –

 

“that a report be prepared for urgent maintenance to be carried out in the South Coogee Estate with particular reference to restoring cracked footpaths, the Emily McCarthy Park and the possibility of installing bus shelters along Elphinstone Parade.  Further, included in the report is to be funding options for the above works.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Council Resolution involves 3 separate areas of investigation, footpath maintenance, parks maintenance and asset acquisitions in relations to bus shelters.

 

1.         The footpaths in the South Coogee Estate have been inspected and it is noted that at a number of locations there are sections of the footpath that are cracked or have been lifted by tree roots.

 

Where lifting of the footpath has occurred, these have generally been attended to with filling to eliminate trip hazards. Whilst it is agreed that this is not a long-term solution, it is an acceptable and appropriate short to mid-term solution. Periodic inspections will be required to ensure that continued lifting of the footpath by the tree roots does not create new trip hazards.

 

Whilst cracked footpaths may not provide the best appearance, repairs are not generally undertaken unless the cracking presents a safety or other risk to users.  Repairs and replacement of footpath slabs is undertaken in accordance with overall priorities as determined by Area Coordinators and through the budget limitations provided by footpath maintenance votes in Council’s annual adopted budget.

 

2.         Emily McCarthy Park was inspected and found to have had some recent vandalism to fencing.  The existing retaining wall is damaged at a number of locations and requires repairs.  There are some other matters of a minor nature including removal of graffiti that also require attention.  All these items have been actioned and are to be attended to as a matter of maintenance within existing maintenance budgets.

 

3.         State Transit buses use Elphinstone Road as a bus route.  Presently, 2 shelters and a number of seats exist along the bus route, with the seats being recently installed in response to earlier requests.  The seats were taken from commercial centre where new seats were installed as part of the JCDecaux furniture contract.

 

Council has no provision within its budget for provision of bus shelters since all new bus shelters are being provided through the exclusive contract with JCDecaux Australia Pty Ltd.  A number of bus shelters are currently being installed as replacements for shelters provided under a recently expired contract with another supplier.  The focus for the replacement and additional shelters is locations that match particular criteria including site suitability, demonstrated needs, inbound or outbound service and suitability for advertising purposes.  Bus stops in Elphinstone Road do not meet the final selection criteria.

 

Council’s database indicates that there are presently in excess of 100 bus stops where the provision of a bus shelter has been identified either through commuter request or other means.  These locations remain on the waiting list and negotiations are continuing with JCDecaux for the provision of a bus shelter with or without advertising at these locations provided that the suitability criteria can be matched

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Like all Council’s assets, ongoing maintenance is required to keep the asset in a serviceable condition.  In this instance, the footpaths in the South Coogee Estate are attended to as items requiring intervention are brought to Council’s attention.

 

Vandalism and graffiti is a constant problem throughout the City and Emily McCarthy Park is no exception.  Repairs and damage are carried out as and when required.

 

Elphinstone Road has not been identified as a site suitable for advertising based bus shelters but may be suitable for a non-advertising bus shelter. However, it is likely that a glass backed shelter may not be an appropriate design for this location and it is considered that ongoing negotiations with JCDecaux will need to be expanded to determine what options exist for the provision of a shelter(s) suitable to this location.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That identified maintenance matters related to footpaths within the South Coogee Estate and other works in Emily McCarthy Park be undertaken as required and in accordance with Council’s existing maintenance allocations.

 

2.         That JCDecaux Australia Pty Ltd be invited to discuss the provision of non-advertising bus shelters within the City of Randwick and that payment of the shelters be offset against the income derived from the installation of the additional advertising shelters.

 

3.         Subject to successful negotiations with JCDecaux Australia Pty Ltd, a further report be submitted to Council indicating the identified priority locations for the installation of non-advertising bus shelters.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS & RESERVES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 42/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 03/02 - PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

 

 

DATE:

11 April, 2002

FILE NO:

T 03/02 .

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In February 2002, Council called for Tenders for Plant & Equipment used in addition to Randwick City Council owned Plant and Equipment. The process was in accordance with the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation (1993). The categories of plant and equipment put out to tender were:

 

1.         Excavators

2.         Small Loaders

3.         Loaders                       

4.         Backhoe/Loader          

5.         Travel Towers 

6.         Minor Plant     

7.         Traffic Management     

8.         Shoring Equipment

9.         Rollers

10.       Trucks

11.       Graders

12.       Kerb and Gutter Machine

13.       Labour

14.       Dewatering Equipment 

 

The tender closed on Tuesday 4th March 2002. At the close of tenders, twelve (12) tenders had been received for various categories within the complete list.  No tenders were received for the categories 11, 12, 13 and 14. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Tender Assessment

 

The selection criteria for this project was based on the following criteria:

 

a) Compliance with the specification;

b) Management of the Contractors indemnity responsibility to the Council for loss or damage caused by the Contractor;

c) Value for money (Schedule of rates, Rebates);

d) Tenderer’s Capability in terms of response and reliability;

e) Occupational, Health and Safety Capability.

 

Tenders were assessed using a quantative process of analysis of the schedules of information provided by the tenderers and their responses to specific questions asked in the Councils Specification.  The guideline for the analysis, a summary of the scoring and the individual analysis of the tender responses is attached herein. 

Selection Committee

 

The selection committee for the evaluation of the Schedule of rates tenders was composed as follows:

 

Mr Adrian O’Leary – Manager Contracts and Purchasing

Miss Chantal Hilderbrandt – Administration Officer, Assets & Infrastructure

Mr Trevor Stolz – Operational Resources Coordinator, Assets& Infrastructure

Discussion of Tenders

 

The offers submitted were varied with some categories receiving only a single offer as in the case of loaders and travel towers and other categories receiving a number of offers where the optimum hire rate varied depending on the class of equipment within the category, as occurred in the case for excavators.  In the truck category no single tenderer was capable of fulfilling the total requirement. 

 

In determining the most attractive offer in some categories the committee gave additional consideration to those offers that were capable of providing most or all of the range of equipment required in the category.  In the case of excavators the committee agreed that one tenderer Giltec, who were able to provide the full range of equipment required and had the highest evaluation score should be recommended as the preferred supplier although the hire rates quoted were on some occasions greater than the other tenderer for the category. 

 

In the truck category it was determined that there was no overall best offer and that preferred suppliers should be appointed for individual classes of equipment within the category.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council accept the tenders submitted below that are recommended by the committee (backup suppliers bracketed): 

 

a)         Excavators- Giltec (Brefni)

b)         Small Loaders-Giltec (Brefni)

c)         Loaders- Giltec          

d)         Backhoe/Loader- Tony L (Brefni & Lloyd Simpson)

e)         Travel TowersKennards Hire

f)          Minor Plant- Coates Hire       

g)         Traffic Management- Shorco Hire      

h)         Shoring Equipment- Shorco Hire

i)          Rollers- Coates Hire

j)          Trucks-

·          3t –Brefni

·          8t- Giltec

·          10t-Giltec

·          15t-R&B Cleary

 

k)         Graders – No tenders submitted

l)          Kerb and Gutter Machine – No tenders submitted

m)        Labour – No tenders submitted

n)         Dewatering equipment no tenders submitted

 

2.         The unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the tender result.

 

3.         The Mayor and General Manager or their delegated representative be authorised to enter into agreements for preferred supplier status with the successful tenderers for a period of not greater than 2 years with the option of extending the period of the agreement for a further 1 year. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Scoring Guideline

Scoring Summary

Evaluation Scoring Sheets

 

 

 

 

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TREVOR STOLZ

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

OPERATIONAL RESOURCES CO0ORDINATOR

 


Tender 03/02

Plant and Equipment Hire

Evaluation Scoring Guideline


 

 

Tender 03/02

Plant and Equipment Hire

Evaluation Scoring Summary



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 44/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1847

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Over the past few years issues relating to Council’s street trees have increased at an alarming rate.  The cost incurred in repairing private sewer line damage alone has increased from $80,000 in 1997 to $305,000 in 2000 / 2001.

 

Investigation of this problem has led to a number of related issues being identified and solutions suggested.  Recent court decisions indicate that this problem will only increase the financial impact on Council in the future if appropriate management strategies are not adopted.

 

The attached reports deal with three interrelated issues.  While each of these issues has an independent outcome all three are dependent upon each other in terms of the overall management of Council’s street trees.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         Policy Covering Damage to Private Sewer Lines

 

The issue of the cost of damage to private sewer lines was identified by Council staff as an efficiency project.  The costs being incurred were identified by an interdisciplinary project team as an area where savings could be achieved by the introduction of improved management procedures. 

 

A survey was conducted into the procedures followed by other councils and the results that were being achieved.  The major outcome of this survey was to draw attention to the National Plumbing and Drainage Code (AS/NZS 3500), which places an onus on each property owner to ensure that their house connections are maintained in a serviceable condition.

 

This does not remove Council’s responsibility for damage clearly caused by aggressive street tree roots but it does require each property owner to take responsibility in circumstances where the condition of failing joints in ageing earthenware pipes is a major contributing factor.

 

b)         Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-Rooted Street Trees

 

In investigating the damage caused to private sewer connections it was realized that this was merely a sub-set of a more general and financially more significant issue.  Not only is damage done to private infrastructure by these trees but also to Council’s public infrastructure.

 

The report prepared by the Project Team is attached. 

 

The most significant recommendation coming out of this report is that relating to the implementation of a removal and replacement strategy for problem trees.

 

c)         Street Tree Master Plan

 

Also arising out of this investigation was the need to review Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.  This task was undertaken by Council’s specialist staff to ensure that problems identified through recent experience were not being carried into the future.  Special attention was paid to damage being caused to private and public infrastructure as a result of inappropriate street tree selection.  The issue of planting under power lines was specifically addressed.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The review of Council’s street tree policies has been both extensive and thorough.  Each of the above elements has been linked in the attached report prepared by Council’s Tree Management Officer.

 

The overall issue of management of trees within the City of Randwick is an important issue both from the financial point of view and from the environmental management point of view. 

 

In view of the impact that these recommendations will have on the City it is considered appropriate that these reports and recommendations be put on public exhibition for a period of six weeks following which a further report be prepared for Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.         The revised Street Tree Master Plan;

2.         The draft Sewerage / Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy and Procedure; and

3.         The draft strategy for Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees

 

Be placed on public exhibition for a period of six weeks, following which a further report be prepared for consideration by Council.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Report by Tree Management Officer

2. Draft Sewerage/Stormwater drain Blockage Policy and Procedure

3. Draft Strategy for Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

4. Revised Street Tree Master Plan (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


Report

 

 

 

TO:

DIRECTOR – ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

FROM:            TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

DATE:             21 MARCH 2002                                FILE:  

 

SUBJECT:       TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As a result of concerns that the process currently utilised by Council’s plumbing contractors in assessing damage caused to private sewer/stormwater systems by the roots of its tree assets provided no incentive to deny liability on behalf of Council, an efficiency project was nominated to address these concerns.

 

Initial research, however, revealed that the use of contract plumbers and the resultant costs were symptoms of a much larger, more complex problem – i.e., the growing financial cost to Council involved in undertaking rectification works as a result of physical damage caused by street tree roots on the urban environment.

 

These costs are not just limited to clearing sewer lines or to planting and maintaining these tree assets. Street trees cause damage to public infrastructure such as footpaths, roads, kerb and gutter as well as to private property.

 

As a further consequence of the damage caused by these Council assets, people may be personally injured and this has resulted in a significant increase in public liability claims being made against Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

There are more than 35,000 Council-owned street trees growing within the City of Randwick. This includes a number of tree species that range in size from small trees of around three metres in height to larger, highly significant and well-established species reaching 15-20 metres in height and which are 50-60 years old.

 

However, a number of tree species growing within Council’s streets are completely inappropriate as street tree specimens and are growing in confined situations that cannot realistically accommodate their total root mass and canopy spread.

 

The most inappropriate species of trees planted within the street environment throughout the City that are causing the majority of serious and ongoing physical damage are Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s figs), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbarks), Casuarina glauca (She Oaks) and Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir plums).

These 2,000-odd aggressive-rooted street trees are causing ongoing damage within the City that is estimated to cost Council in excess of $1,670,000 annually. This figure includes damages and maintenance costs to both Council and private infrastructure.

 

A breakdown of all the costs associated with these tree species is contained in the accompanying Strategy for Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees.

 

At present the removal of large inappropriate street trees is undertaken in an ad hoc manner that generally depends on the amount of ongoing damage being caused to public infrastructure and/or private property or where Council is exposed to serious public liability.

 

This issue was recently brought to a head when a number of mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing in George Street, Randwick, were approved for removal by Council. Despite Council officers highlighting the many reasons why these trees could not be retained, residents argued that they should be kept simply because of their size and heritage value.

 

This document details the costs associated with Council’s public liability and professional indemnity insurance and makes the point that many of the claims made against Council are for trips and falls caused by the roots of street trees damaging footpaths, driveways, kerb and gutter or simply protruding above ground level.

 

The damage caused to private sewer systems by the roots of Council’s street tree assets currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of its insurance excess budget.

 

There has been a steady increase in expenditure by Council on the repair of private sewers that are affected by street trees. This figure has increased from $80,000 in the 1997 financial year to $305,000 for 2000/2001.

 

At present, Randwick City Council has no policy for dealing with sewer/stormwater damage caused by its tree assets and its procedures for dealing with these matters, when compared with neighbouring Councils, were found to be quite generous.

 

Because the majority of existing sewer systems within the City are relatively old and constructed of terracotta, they are now in a declining state that renders them susceptible to tree root penetration.

 

Obviously, this lack of a clearly defined policy/procedure, combined with an ongoing decline in private property sewerage infrastructure, will mean that the cost to Council in dealing with the damage caused to sewer systems by the roots of its street trees will continue to increase.

 

In order to effectively deal with this issue and to ensure that both residents and Council officers are aware of their respective obligations, a Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy has been formulated and a copy of that document is attached.

 

This policy document makes property owners aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that their sewer system conforms to the relevant standards (AS/NZS 3500 National Plumbing and Drainage Code) and that such systems be maintained in a serviceable condition.

 

At the same time it recognises that Council tree assets are capable of causing damage to those systems and where it can be demonstrated that Council is responsible for a blockage or damage to a sewer/stormwater drain, appropriate remedial action will be undertaken by Council to return the drain to a serviceable condition.

 

This policy also addresses both its public liability exposure and the declining state of the majority of existing sewer systems by encouraging property owners to upgrade their existing systems to PVC plastic wherever possible.

 

Again, where it can be demonstrated that a Council tree asset is responsible for damage caused to a sewer system, Council will contribute towards reasonable replacement costs.

 

The adoption and implementation of this policy should ensure that Council minimises its costs in relation to the damage caused by the roots of its trees to private sewer/stormwater systems and a copy of the proposed Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy is attached.

 

As a result of a number of issues that were recognised in the drafting of the strategy for dealing with the damage caused by aggressive-rooted street trees, Council’s Street Tree Master Plan had to be comprehensively revised.

 

Part of the long-term tree management strategy recommended in that document was to reinforce existing plantings of a number of existing street tree species – most notably Ficus ‘Hillii’, Melaleuca quinquenervia and Casuarina glauca.

 

This was primarily in recognition of their historic and streetscape significance but did not take into account the severe and ongoing damage being caused by them nor the associated costs to Council of their retention.

 

Obviously, the current high maintenance costs and ongoing damage caused by these trees would only increase should more of them be planted and this is in direct conflict with the recommendations contained in the tree root damage strategy document.

 

Council officers were also uncomfortable with a number of tree species recommended for street tree planting – notably Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson figs), Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pines) and Flindersia australis (Australian Teak).

 

It was felt that these trees were completely inappropriate for street tree planting and that they would only further complicate an already unsustainable situation by creating major infrastructure damage for years to come.

 

Another important consideration in the revision of the Street Tree Master Plan was the recognition of Council’s obligation to provide habitat corridors wherever possible (Green Web – Sydney among other environmental obligations) – particularly linking Centennial Park in the north to Botany Bay National Park in the south.

 

Any tree species that were removed from the draft plan species list were replaced wherever possible with either indigenous or native tree species. It was felt that this was particularly important in the Exposed Coastal Strip precinct because of its harsh topography, water-repellent sandy soils and exposure to persistent salt-laden winds.

 

Conversely, because of the recognised heritage value of properties within Kensington and parts of Kingsford, tree species to be planted in the Northern Swamp Valley Floor precinct include exotic tree species such as Jacaranda mimosifolia, Magnolia grandiflora and Schinus areira, among others.

 

Another area that was found to be deficient in the original document was appropriate tree species designated for planting under power lines. This constitutes approximately 50 percent of street tree numbers throughout the City and the requirement to maintain mandatory vegetation clearances from overhead electricity mains takes up a sizeable proportion of Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

This problem has now been addressed and the revised species list includes numbers of small-medium sized tree species for planting under power lines and in confined situations.

 

Allowance has also been made for the concern that people have about the dangers of large trees in the landscape and the majority of tree species contained in the revised Street Tree Master Plan will reach between four-ten metres at maturity.

 

The issue of large trees growing within private property was highlighted at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 February, 2002, when Motions Pursuant to Notice were introduced by both Councillor T Seng and Councillor C Matthews requesting that Council adopt a more liberal tree cutting policy where the continued presence of trees pose a danger to lives and properties and that Council’s Tree Preservation Order be amended to assist in the removal of nuisance and large trees from within private property.

 

Councillor Seng’s Motion was lost on the night and a report on Councillor Matthews’ Motion to amend the Tree Preservation Order is listed for notice on Tuesday, 26 March, 2002. 

 

The general exception to this will be some species selected for main street planting where a dramatic and defining effect is required. Even so, the largest tree species for main street planting would be Platanus x hybrida (London plane), Eucalyptus citriodora (Lemon-scented gum), Eucalyptus botryoides (Swamp Mahogany), Angophora costata (Sydney Red gum) and small numbers of Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay figs) – the figs are only to be planted where space will allow.

 

The revision of the Street Tree Master Plan was undertaken in-house by Council’s tree management staff. These officers consulted with Council’s Bushcare Co-ordinator, Noxious Weeds officer, nursery staff, landscape technicians and landscape architects when considering any changes to the original document to ensure that the focus and integrity of that document was not only retained but also enhanced.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are a number of elements involved in the proper long-term management of Council’s tree assets that need to be addressed in a cohesive and holistic manner.

 

The main problem associated with Council’s existing street trees is the nature and severity of damage caused to both public infrastructure and private property by the roots of well established but inappropriate tree species and the ongoing and recurrent costs associated with their retention.

 

The cost of dealing with the damage associated with the 2,000 identified aggressive-rooted street trees within the City has been calculated at $1.67 million annually. This represents an average annual recurrent damages cost per tree of $835.00.

 

The annual cost of managing the damage caused by the remaining 33,000+ street tree assets has been calculated at $2,520,000. This represents a cost per tree of $90.00 annually and this could be considered acceptable when the amenity value these trees provide to the community is considered.

 

The annual cost of undertaking rectification works as a result of physical damage caused by aggressive street tree roots is excessive and arguably unsustainable. Significant annual savings are possible if risk minimisation measures, administration changes and a removal and replacement policy for inappropriate tree species are introduced.

 

To complement these initiatives, a Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy and the revised Street Tree Master Plan should also be adopted and implemented.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

THAT Randwick City Council adopts and implements the accompanying revised Street Tree Master Plan;

 

THAT Randwick City Council adopts and implements the accompanying Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy;

 

THAT Randwick City Council adopts and implements the accompanying ‘Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees’ strategy and implements the Action Plan recommended in that document.

 

The recommendations of that Action Plan are summarised below:

 

·          A Tender be developed and called for the provision of contract plumbing services;

 

·          A database be established to manage the information on blocked private sewer lines and the use of contract plumbers;

 

·          All Work Orders relating to Council tree assets be linked to those assets in order to give a true cost of tree-related damage;

 

·          A Sewer/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy be implemented and that that policy minimises costs to Council, identifies responsibilities and provides an equitable service to all residents in relation to sewer/stormwater issues;

 

·          The State-wide Best Practice Manual be utilised by Council staff where relevant in the development of policies and procedures;

 

·          A cost benefit analysis be undertaken detailing the cost of removing problematic street trees against the projected total cost of damage to Council assets and private property and that a draft removal and replacement strategy be developed for submission to Council;

 

·          The proposed Tree Maintenance and Management Program 2002-2005 be adopted and implemented.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Randwick Street Tree Master Plan

Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy

Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees strategy

 

 

 

……………………………………

Bryan Bourke

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

.1.1      PART 4 – ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:      /        /2002                                                 Policy No:      /        /2002

 

 

POLICY TITLE:          SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN BLOCKAGE POLICY

 

 

File No.                      

 

 

.1.2      OBJECTIVE

 

To provide an effective and consistent strategy for dealing with blockages and/or damage to sewer or stormwater drains caused by Council tree assets or activities.

 

 

.1.3      POLICY STATEMENT

 

That property owners be made aware it is their responsibility to ensure their sewer system conforms to Sydney Water standards (AS/NZS 3500 National Plumbing and Drainage Code) and that such systems are maintained in a serviceable condition.

 

That where it can be demonstrated Council is responsible for a blockage or damage to a sewer/stormwater drain, appropriate remedial action is undertaken by Council to return the drain to a serviceable condition.

 

That Council minimise its long-term risk exposure by encouraging property owners to upgrade their existing sewer systems to PVC plastic wherever possible.

 

That Council minimise costs in relation to damage caused by the roots of its tree assets.   

 

 

 

 

Minute No.:      /                                                         Meeting Date:      /        /2002

 


 

SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN BLOCKAGE PROCEDURE

 

 

1.         If blockage/damage occurs within Council business hours (8.30am-4.30pm – Monday-Friday) and reasonable investigation by the property owner/agent indicates the blockage/damage has been caused by the roots of a tree asset on Council property, Council’s Depot Call Centre must be notified (9399 0721). Outside these hours Council’s after hours service centre is to be contacted (9963 1665).

2.         Where Council’s nominated plumbing contractors are available, able and willing to attend a reported blockage and their services are refused, no reimbursement for related private contractors’ fees will be considered.

 

3.         Council will approve the use of an alternative non-Council service where the Council service is not reasonably available. The Council will not be responsible for any costs incurred by the property owner/agent without specific prior agreement.

4.         Council staff or nominated contract plumbers will not attend the property unless the property owner, the secretary of the Body Corporate or their authorised agent, or the property manager agrees to sign an agreement to comply with Council’s Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage policy.

 

5.         If Council’s plumber has attended the site but signature has been refused, reimbursement for related private plumbing contractors’ fees will not be considered.

 

6.         The property owner/agent shall provide the Council with unimpeded access to the affected property for the purpose of providing the service.

 

7.                  The property owner/agent accepts that Council will determine its responsibility for any blockage/damage and agrees that Council’s determination shall be final.

 

8.                  If there is any doubt at the time of inspection that a Council tree is responsible for any blockage, Council may require the property owner/agent to have any intruding tree root material analysed by a professional tree root analyst. Any further action by Council would then be dependent on the findings of any such analysis. This cost is to be borne by the property owner/agent.

 

9.                  If, at the time of inspection, a Council tree is not judged to be the probable cause of any blockage, Council plumbers will not commence work.




 

10.       If the tree/s causing the blockage is on Council property there will be no charge for Council’s plumbers to clear the pipes. If another cause for any blockage is identified a reasonable fee will be charged. If such charges are not paid within one (1) month of an invoice being sent, Council will not attend blockages at the relevant owner/agent’s properties until payment has been made.

11                f a sewer diagram is deemed necessary the property owner/agent will bear the cost. Where affected pipes do not appear on the sewer diagram, or where the drain has not been constructed in conformance with regulations (AS/NZS 3500), Council has no obligation to carry out any works and reimbursement for contractor’s fees will not be considered.

 

12.       Council plumbers will attempt to clear any blockage using an ‘electric eel’ but are under no obligation to dig up and/or replace any affected pipes.

 

13.       Upon completion of line clearing service, the owner/agent will be required to sign a release form indicating that Council has correctly and satisfactorily discharged its policy obligations as set out herein.

 

14.       Where Council is called to any one property on more than two occasions within one (1) calendar year, it may refuse to attend further blockages. Where this has occurred, the owner of the property should be advised to consider upgrading the sewer/stormwater system to PVC plastic with solvent joints, if appropriate.

15.       Council plumbers contracted to clear blockages must immediately notify the property owner, the secretary of the Body Corporate or their agent of this policy if Council tree roots are suspected or discovered to be the cause of any blockage.

16.       Reimbursement for contractor’s fees will not be considered if Council plumbers could reasonably have been called and either the property owner, the secretary of the Body Corporate, their agent or their plumber are on record as having received this policy.

 

17.       Reimbursement will be considered for line clearing only. Reimbursement for (a) unsuccessful attempts to clear lines or (b) line replacement will not be considered.

·          Where reimbursement is offered, it will be at current industrial guideline rates only, and only for work deemed necessary in order to clear the line. A maximum of two-hundred-and-twenty dollars ($220.00) will be paid for any one blockage.


 

18.       Where the property owner/agent decides to upgrade their sewer/stormwater system to PVC plastic with solvent joints and it can be demonstrated that tree roots from a Council tree asset have damaged the existing pipes, Council will contribute towards reasonable replacement costs

 

·          In assessing any claim for a contribution towards reasonable replacement costs, Council will take into account the age and condition of the existing pipes as well as any deterioration of their joints and any other contributory factors that have allowed tree roots to penetrate into the system.

19.       If Council agrees to pay any claim (in part or in full), a Release Voucher document is sent to the owner/agent which “discharges Randwick City Council from all further liability in connection with the event that occurred at a specific property”. This document must then be signed by the owner/agent and returned to Council before any such claim will be paid.


 

AGREEMENT

 

 

I/We ………………………………………………………. Name of Owner ……………

 

of …………………………………………………………. Address of Owner …………

 

have reported:

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………...

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………...

 

……………………………………………..(brief description of blockage)……………….

 

on ………………/…………./…………….. (date reported)

 

and I/We agree to abide by Randwick City Council’s Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy in accordance with the conditions set out therein.

 

Agreed by the owner/agent on the ……………….day of …………………….. 2002

 

 

 

Signed: …………………………………………………..

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

RELEASE

 

 

I/We …………………………………………………………Name of Owner ………..

 

of ………………………………………………………….Address of Owner ………..

 

after entering into the above agreement, now declare that Randwick City Council has correctly and satisfactorily discharged its policy responsibilities in accordance with the conditions set out therein.

 

Further, I/We agree that the Council has no further responsibility or liability for the blockage event referenced above.

 

Executed by the owner/agent as a deed on the …………….. day of ……………2002

 

Signed: ……………………………………………………

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 45/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TREE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

P/012409   98/S/3380

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

  

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 13th November 2001 Council considered a report dealing with damage caused to property 17 Earl Street, Randwick.  Council resolved:

 

“That:

 

a)         As a gesture of good will and to ensure that this matter is finalised, Council undertake the necessary repairs to Mr Edwards’ property as requested by him in his initial claim for damages; and

b)         A report be prepared for consideration by Council as to whether or not the contractor involved should continue with this Council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Part a) of Council’s resolution was resolved in a satisfactory manner by payment being made by the contractor to Mr Edwards.  Mr Edwards accepted this settlement and signed a Deed of Release on 13th November 2001.

 

Part b) of Council’s resolution was effectively dealt with through the tender process for the selection of a tree contractor.  The specification specifically dealt with the issues of customer service and employee management which were the issues arising from this incident.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council will be aware that a tender was awarded for tree management services at the Council Meeting held in March 2002.  It is not proposed that any further action be taken in relation to this matter.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 45/2002 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 12/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DOUBTFUL DEBTS - APPROVAL TO WRITE OFF

 

 

DATE:

11 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0040 xr P/003989

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report seeks Council’s approval to write-off a debt amounting to $59,425.10, in relation to a Section 94 contribution for 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

 

ISSUES:

 

The debt refers to development application number 334/94, lodged by Benchmark Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd, on 23 June 1994 and approved on 9 December 1994.

 

Development approval was granted for the erection of a mixed commercial residential development.

 

In accordance with Council’s adopted Section 94 Contributions Plan, contributions were to be received totalling $123,699.13 for the provision of open space in community facilities and a commercial townscape contribution.

 

This contribution was to be paid prior to the collection of the approved building plans.  To cover this fee a bank guarantee was lodged and accepted by Council on 28 March 1995.

 

The bank guarantee had an expiry date of 15 July 1996 and it was not called up prior to this date.   Council subsequently commenced legal action to recover the debt.  After a long and drawn out legal process, the court ordered by consent that Benchmark Developments Pty Ltd pay Council a reduced sum of $70,000 by ten instalments of $7,000.  One instalment of $7,000 was subsequently received in March 1999.

 

Subsequently, A.C. Ashton & Company, Chartered Accountants were appointed administrators to Benchmark Developments Pty Ltd during the early part of 2000.

 

On 8 May 2000, a major meeting of creditors was held, and was attended by officers of Randwick City Council.  It was resolved at that meeting that the company execute a deed of company arrangement and this would allow a distribution to unsecured creditors of approximately 2 cents in the dollar, and then allow control to revert back to its Directors.

 

In July 2001, a payment was received from Benchmark Developments Pty Ltd for $3,574.90 as a final payment, hence leaving the outstanding debt as mentioned above.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As there will be no further distribution of funds in relation to this matter, there is no option but to write-off the remaining debt.

 

To prevent this situation from re-occurring it is now a standard condition of development consent that bank guarantees are no longer accepted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993, the sum of $59,425.10 to be written-off.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 15/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL'S INDUCTION COURSE

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2832

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At it’s meeting of 12th February 2002, Council requested that a report be prepared on how Council’s Induction Courses are being administered and who conducts them, including how often these courses are conducted and what is contained within these courses.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

On 20th June 2001, Manex approved a new policy and program relating to the induction of new employees. The aim of the policy and program is to provide the necessary information, facilities and motivation to assist new employees to adjust to a new work environment and to encourage the development of loyalty and enthusiasm towards Randwick City Council.

 

The induction program has been divided into two key phases. Phase One commences prior to the employee entering on duty and involves confirmation of:

 

-           The goals, objectives and functions of the Council;

-           The terms and conditions of employment;

-           The specific requirements of the job and standards of performance expected; and

-           A general familiarisation of the working environment.

 

Each new employee is given an induction package that includes all relevant employment forms, the organisation structure and the Council’s Community Annual Report.

 

The immediate supervisor of the new employee is responsible for ensuring that Phase One of the Induction Program is completed. To ensure consistency the supervisor is required to complete regular induction checklists during the first three months of an employee’s employment.

 

Phase Two has been designed to provide the employee with an introduction to the organisation as a whole and is facilitated through the delivery of a Corporate Induction Program. The Corporate Program has been designed to enhance, not replace, the one-on-one induction provided by Managers/Supervisors during the first three months of an employee’s service.

 

The Corporate Induction Program is coordinated by the Human Resources Department and is delivered through a number of presenters including the Mayor and the General Manager. The topics covered include:

 

-     Functions of Local Government;

-     Structure and functions of Council;

-     Randwick City Council vision;

-     Organisational structure and functions;

-     Framework and requirements of the management plan;

-     Budget process and financial implications

-     Terms of employment;

-     Occupational Health and Safety;

-     Information Technology;

-     Corporate Systems;

-     Corporate Assets; and

-     Corporate Policies.

 

The Induction Program is conducted on a monthly basis, subject to the availability of 5 attendees. All new employees are required to attend and existing employees are encouraged to attend as a refresher.

 

ISSUES:

 

A review of the induction program has highlighted that although the program informs staff of the established protocols for interaction with elected Councillors as part of their duties, there is no corporate guideline available for easy reference.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The introduction of a corporate guideline to advise staff of the correct protocols for interactions between the elected representatives and Council staff would improve the process and ensure that the Councillors are provided with a service consistent with their status.

 

It is also proposed that the corporate guideline be included in the induction package and maintained on the Council’s Intranet site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That a corporate guideline to advise staff of the correct protocols for interactions between Councillors and staff be developed by the Public Officer; and

 

2.         That the corporate guideline be included in the induction package given to new employees and maintained on Council’s Intranet site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 17/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Development Application No. 933/01 - 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0933/2001

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT     

 

1.         INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health Building & Planning Committee at its meeting held on 12 February 2002 resolved that:

 

“ This application be deferred to allow the amended plans currently before Council to be given consideration by Council Officers, with a report to be tabled at the first available meeting of Council.”

 

Council received the amended plans referred to in the above resolution on 31 January 2001.  The primary amendments to the proposal involved a reduction from 14 units to 13 units, lowering of the maximum wall height by approximately 200mm and modifications to the pergolas and planter boxes.  The amended plans were referred to an independent consultant (BOA Architecture) for assessment.

 

A meeting was held with the applicant on 6 March 2002 to discuss the issues and conclusions drawn from the assessment of the amended plans and to suggest a redesign of the proposal in line with some of the recommendations of Council’s consultant.  In

summary Council’s consultant concluded that the “site is probably too small for the proposed development as currently designed” and suggested that a redesign which provides for two distinct building blocks with an open space between, would be a more appropriate design response for the site.

 

On 13 March 2002, the applicant submitted amended plans to Council. The applicant has subsequently advised Council that these plans will be relied upon in the Land & Environment Court proceedings. 

 

The main amendments to the proposal involve a further reduction in the number of units from 13 to 12, an increase of the soft landscaped area to approximately 50%, an increase in the front setback of the upper level, and modifications to the front ballustrading and pergolas.  The latest set of amended plans (received 13 March 2001) are the subject of this assessment report.

 

The “deemed refusal” appeal has been set down for hearing on 14, 15 & 16 May 2002. It is therefore imperative that Council determine the application at the earliest opportunity to allow adequate time to prepare for the hearing, if Council refuses the application.

 

2.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The amended proposal has renotified and readvertised on 26 March in accordance with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

D Malanos

4 Grosvenor Street

 

Issues:

-     non-compliances with FSR

-     building bulk

-     impacts on adjoining properties Nos.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street in terms of overlooking/loss of privacy, increased noise, traffic and overshadowing

-     impact of smoke from No.4 and 6’s chimney on nearby units of the proposed building

-     damage to property from excavation

-     stormwater detail

-     out of character

-     noise from transient residents

-     lack of parking

-     pedestrian safety

-     loss of gum tree

 

S Gillen

6 Grosvenor Street

 

Issues:

-     non- compliances with site area, FSR, and frontage requirements

-     inadequate deep soil planting area

-     out of character

-     excessive bulk and overdevelopment

-     loss of privacy and solar access

-     boundary to boundary car park

-     non compliance with side setbacks

-     pedestrian safety

-     loss of significant tree

-     heritage significance of Grosvenor Street

-     excessive bulk and scale

-     inconsistency with provisions of DCP – Multi-Unit Housing

-     inadequate car park layout

 

G Compton

14 Grosvenor Street

 

Issues:

-       design and appearance

-     density

-     floor space ratio

-     on-street parking impact

-     potential for increased dumping of rubbish in street

-     overdevelopment of the street which is potential conservation area

 

S C Clark

5 Grosvenor Street

 

            Issues:

-     out of character

-     inadequate landscaping

-     inadequate setback and noise

-     loss of solar access

-     heritage significance of Grosvenor Street will be compromised

 

R Greenwell

7 Grosvenor Street

 

Issues:

-     traffic and on-street parking impact

 

Mr M and Mrs M Mifsud

C/- Craig Sewell Estate Agents

            75 Belmore Road

RANDWICK 2031

(owners 1/12 Grosvenor Street)

 

Issues:

-     conservation listing of Grosvenor Street

-     overdevelopment of site

-     lack of parking

-     visual amenity

 

E Hanley

13 Grosvenor Street

KENSINGTON 2033

 

Issues:

-     provision for on-site car parking

 

S Armstrong (owner) 5/12 Grosvenor Street

 

Issues:

-     loss of privacy and sunlight

-     inadequate setbacks

-     lack of parking

 

3.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

3.1.      Landscape Issues

 

There are a number of trees, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a)         One Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located within the rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is approximately 13 metres tall and in good health. Council’s Tree Management Officers were undecided on the species of the subject Gum Tree and staff from the Royal Botanic Gardens were consulted. In a written response to Council, (see copy attached), the Information Officer-Botanical Information Service has advised Council that the subject tree is most likely a Eucalyptus nicholii. Council’s Tree Management Co-ordinator has assessed the application and, based on all the information available, has recommended that approval be granted for removal of the subject Gum Tree subject to the planting of a minimum number of six (6) 200 litre replacement trees. In granting approval for removal of the subject tree the Tree Management Co-ordinator has reasoned that the tree species in question is relatively short lived with generally a shallow root system and the actual tree in question is on a lean, (thereby raising safety issues).

 

b)         One Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located within the front yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is approximately 10 metres tall with a broad canopy and in good health. As such this tree should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

c)         One Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) located within the rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in good health, however it is not a significant species within the Randwick area and as such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

d)         Two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located within  Council’s nature strip. Both of these trees are approximately 8 metres tall, with broad canopies and in good health. As such they should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

e)         One Hibiscus tiliaceus (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) located within the rear yard of No.8 Grosvenor Street. This tree is an immature specimen, approximately 6 metres tall and leaning over the existing shed. Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

f)          One Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located within the rear yard of No.8 Grosvenor Street, close to the rear boundary. This tree is approximately 7 metres tall and in good health. As such this tree should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

3.2.      Drainage Issues

 

            Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

3.3.      Traffic/Parking Issues

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 12 residential units will be in the range of 48 to 60 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 7 vehicles per hour is considered low to moderate and no delays should be experienced in Grosvenor Street as a result of this development.

 

The applicant has indicated that the proposed provision of 15 car spaces complies with Council’s DCP – Parking. The DEPCD is advised of the following with respect to the parking layout:

 

·          The proposed aisle width and dimensions of the car spaces are generally less than that required by Council’s DCP – Parking. The deficiency will make it difficult to enter the car park in a forward direction, utilise a number of the car spaces and then exit the site in a forward direction.

 

·          The structural columns are likely to have an adverse affect on vehicle movements into and from car spaces 12 to 15 inclusive, (i.e. the parallel parking spaces).

 

·          Vehicles attempting to exit the site in a forward direction from Car space 1 are likely to experience difficulties. The applicant should be advised to consider either widening the car space or removing/shortening any obstructions along the western edge of the internal access ramp.

 

The proposed internal driveway appears to be in general compliance with Council’s DCP-Parking, however limited level information has been provided.

 

4.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

 -          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-           State Environmental Planning Policy No.1-Development Standards

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 - Min. Lot Size

No minimum lot size

689.8sq.m.

N/A

31 - Landscape Area

Min. 50% of site area to be provided as landscaped area

 

Not more than 50% of the required landscaped area to be provided over podiums or excavated basement

areas

359.2m2 = 52%

 

 

Approximately 50% over excavated basement car park area.

Yes

 

 

No. SEPP 1 objection submitted. Refer to section 5.2 of report.

32 – FSR

0.65:1 for sites less than 700sq.m in area 

0.94:1

No. SEPP No.1 objection lodged. Refer to section 5.3 of report.

33 - Building Height

Wall height=10.0m

 

 

 

Max.height=12m

 

Max.wall height =10.2m

 

 Max.Height =10.2m

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

N/A

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

No

 

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

(See section 5.6)

Heritage Item at No. 16 Grosvenor Street.

 

 

4.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solution)

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1            The front setback consistent  with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2            Ensure that:

·              solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·              privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·              Landscaping and private open space provided.

·              Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Proposed front setbacks range from 3.2m up to 6.5m, which are consistent with adjoining and nearby buildings in the streetscape.

 

 

Minimum average setbacks:

 

East side boundary =

Ground – 2.9m , 1st – 3.1m

2nd  – 3.14m

Does not comply.

 

West side boundary =

Ground – 2.76m, 1st – 3.34m

2nd – 4.58m

Does not comply.

 

East side boundary = min. 1.5m - Does not comply.

 

West side boundary = min.1.5m - Does not comply.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Rear Boundary Setback

P3            Ensure that:

·          solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·              Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·              Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·              Building built across site.

S3 Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

 

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

 

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Average setback =

Ground – 6.62, 1st – 5.86,

2nd – 6.27

Does not comply.

 

 

Min 5.2 at 1st floor level

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

General

P4            Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties.

 

S4  No device may encroach no more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

 

Complies.

 

DENSITY

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

No. See section 5.3

 

FENCES

P1           

·              Front fences consistent with streetscape.

·              Entrances highlighted.

·              Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1            Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

No. See section 5.7

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

Landscaped Areas

P1            Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

No. See section 5.2

 

P2            Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided communal open space.

 

Private recreational open space  around building allocated for use by ground floor units only. Does not comply.

 

Private Open Space

General

P3           

·              Provides privacy.

·              is accessible from main living areas.

 

P4            In front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

Proposal complies with preferred solution.

 

 

Private courtyards for Units 1 and 2 proposed to front of building.  Front fence height and design incompatible with the dominant character of the streetscape. Does not comply.

 

Townhouses, row housing, villa housing etc

P5  Dwellings provided with useable private open space at ground or podium level.

 

S5  Minimum area of 25 m2 of private open space with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

N/A

 

Flats and apartments

P6 Dwellings have direct access to courtyard, balcony,  deck or roof garden.

 

S6    Minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

Proposal satisfactorily meets the preferred solution and performance requirement.

 

PRIVACY

.1                    Visual Privacy

 

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

.2                    Acoustic Privacy

 

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise.

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation. Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Window opening to main living areas are generally orientated to the front and rear of the building with openings to bedrooms and bathrooms orientated to the side boundaries, the proposed bathroom windows openings having 1.6m sill heights. Planter boxes proposed to the sides of balconies to restrict overlooking of adjoining properties. Preferred solution and performance requirement is satisfactorily met.

 

No – private open space areas will be overlooked from neighbouring windows of No. 12 Grosvenor Street.

 

 

 

No. See section 5.5.1

 

 

 

As per BCA requirements.

VIEW SHARING

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

P3 Buildings and dwellings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No significant views available.

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

 

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

* If less than this is available the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

 

 

 

.2.1.1        No

See Section 5.5.2 of report.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Performance requirement and objectives will not be satisfactorily met. See Section 5.5.2 of report

 

 

Assessment indicates performance requirement will be satisfactorily met. See Section 5.5.2 of report.

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·     Living areas are orientated to         the north.

·     Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

S4 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

Note:

Central ducted heating/cooling system requires a  minimum of 4.5 stars Nat HERS rating.

 

 

 

Nat HERS Certificate provided. Proposal complies with preferred solution.

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Solar collector roof area to face 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west of north, and slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal.

Proposal does not comply with preferred solution as a flat roof behind a roof parapet is proposed.

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

.2.1.2        Does not comply

 

P8 No rainforest timbers or old growth forest timbers used. Materials have low environmental impact. 

 

Proposed building to be of concrete and brick construction with aluminium framed windows. Proposal would comply with preferred solution.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1 Design allows surveillance. P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

 

 

 

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

Does not comp1y. 1.8m high  fencing is proposed to the front of the building thereby reducing visibility of ground floor unit window/door openings from the street.

 

Complies. Automatic panel lift security door proposed to basement car park entry.

 

.2.1.3        Proposal can be conditioned to comply.

 

No provision for lighting of entry/access ways indicated on the plans.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

PARKING

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P2 Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Basement car park entry centrally located at the front of the building. Height of car park opening is approximately 3.3m, which could be reduced by condition of consent.

 

Not required, as development does not contain more than 14 dwellings.

 

Bicycle storeroom provided adjacent to car park entry. Proposal satisfactorily meets performance requirement.

 

Note:  The parking requirements are set in Randwick Parking DCP. The requirements are:

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

                                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed : 15 spaces comprising 12 private and 3 visitor/wash bay spaces. Complies

 

 

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

 

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

Proposal complies with performance requirement.

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

S2  Vehicles enter parking spaces with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

.2.1.4        No. See section 5.8

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Complies.

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

.2.1.5        Complies

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

No details of driveway finishes provided. Compliance could be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

 

Proposed ramp gradients satisfactory.

STORAGE

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1  10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1 metres.

 

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area.

Storage facilities may be in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages.

 

No storage spaces are proposed.  Applicant has not demonstrated that adequate accessible storage area is provided for each dwelling.

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

P1 Design must provide access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

.2.1.6        N/A

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 and so on.

The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

 

 

.2.1.7        N/A – 12 dwellings proposed

 

 

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

.2.1.8        N/A

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

 

N/A

UTILITIES/

SITE FACILITIES

 

P1 Mail Delivery

in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P2Television/Radio Antennae and Satellite Dishes

Single common television/radio antenna and communication reception.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P3   Electricity

In accordance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

 

Electrical reticulation underground.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P4 Gas

Meter for each dwelling and to optimum service points.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

 

P5 Water Supply 

In accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

 

P6 Telephone

In accordance with the service provider.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P7 Laundry and Drying Facilities

·    An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

·      Communal clothes drying accessible and screened from the street and public places.

 

 

 

 

Proposal complies.

 

 

 

None proposed, however, compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

S1  Storage cupboard in each kitchen sufficient which enables separation of recyclable material.

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

Details not provided.

 

P2  Garbage and recycling containers in centralised garbage/ recycling room accessible to garbage compactors where bins can be easily wheeled for collection. Facilities to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

Proposal complies.

 

P3  Collection facilities complement design of the development and are not obtrusive.

S3  Waste facilities not to be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

Proposal complies. Garbage room proposed at basement level adjacent to car park entry

 

5.         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.

 

5.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

            The Aims of Randwick LEP 1998, as stated under Clause 2 of the LEP include:

 

(e)        to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City, and

 

(g)        to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

 

The Objectives of the Residential 2C zone, as stated under Part 12 (1) of the LEP include:

 

(c)        to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

The bulk, scale and general architectural treatment of the proposed development is unacceptable in terms of its urban design and streetscape fit and will detract from the aesthetic qualities of Randwick.

 

The proposed development is located in the ‘Grosvenor Street Area’ which is recommended as a Conservation Area in the draft Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study by Godden Mackay Logan (G.M.L.), June 2001. The study provides a contextual heritage analysis of the built form in Grosvenor Street and identifies a group of Federation period houses that have a high degree of physical and stylistic cohesiveness…’.  The draft study is currently in stage 2 of the process whereby detailed statements of significance are being prepared.

 

A subsequent study by City Plan Services - Heritage Consultants also concurred with the recommendations of the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study regarding the character and significance of the Grosvenor Street. The study determined that out of the 23 buildings in Grosvenor Street 17 are of federation character, and that the predominant type of development in the street consists of single storey dwelling houses and two semi detached dwellings.

 

A key objective of the Randwick Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing is to ensure that the appearance multi unit housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and is visually compatible with the identified desired future character for the locality. The DCP identifies a number of main building types that are characteristic of the residential environments of Randwick. It requires that appropriate design criteria be incorporated into new development in respect to massing and proportions, roof design, verandah/balcony and window design, so that new buildings enhance and complement the existing urban character.

 

In view of the dominant architectural character identified in Grosvenor Street by both the GML and City Plan Services studies, any new development must continue the established patterns and forms which emphasise the distinctiveness of Grosvenor Street and make it a memorable place within the City of Randwick.

 

The architectural character and design of the proposed development does not respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street and as such is inconsistent with and contrary to the above aims and objectives of the LEP.  The proposed development would also have an adverse impact upon local residential amenity in terms of visual bulk and scale and overshadowing. These issues are discussed in further detail below.

 

5.2       Landscaped Area-Clause 31

 

Clause 31(2) of the LEP requires a minimum of 50 % of the site area to be provided as landscaped area. The proposal provides a total landscaped area of approximately 359 sqm, which corresponds to 52% of the site area.

 

Clause 31(3) of the LEP requires that not more than 50% of the required landscaped area be provided over podiums or excavated basement areas. The proposal provides approximately 50% of the required landscaped area over the basement car park of the development thereby complying with the standard. The applicant has achieved compliance with this standard by increasing the eastern side setback of the basement car park from a nil setback to a 1m setback.

 

The purpose of the development standard for landscaped area is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban run-off and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

Whilst the proposal complies with the development standards in relation to landscaped area, the non-compliance with the side setback requirements in conjunction with the proposed car park footprint results in inadequate provision for deep soil planting along the western side of the building. It is acknowledged that any development on the site would require a car park footprint, which is in close proximity to the boundaries. However, the non compliance with the side setback and its maximum FSR requirements, limits the opportunity for wider planter areas which are able to accommodate larger vegetation and therefore provide visual screening and softening of the development from the neighbouring property to the west.  Most of the proposed landscaping along the western side of the building is confined to a planter box having a proposed 1.0m soil depth and  width of only 500mm.

 

Further, the amount of floor space proposed generates a car parking demand, which results in the footprint of the proposed building extending significantly beyond the rear setbacks of the adjoining buildings thereby reducing opportunities for an effective visual buffer through the provision of deep soil planting.

 

The proposed development does not provide adequate common recreational open space at ground level for use by all residential units of the building. The applicant has indicated that the communal open space area will be provided along the rear of the building. Given that the living areas of unit 6 have a direct visual relationship and access to this area it is not considered that the proposed location will provide an active communal open space area.

 

Council’s Tree Management Co-Ordinator has advised that approval is granted for the removal of the Gum Tree located within the rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street subject to the planting of a minimum number of six (6) 200 litre replacement trees. In granting approval for removal of the subject tree the Tree Management Co-ordinator has reasoned that the tree species in question is relatively short lived with generally a shallow root system and the tree in question is on a lean, (thereby raising safety issues).

 

5.3       Floor Space Ratio, Bulk and Scale

 

As the site is less than 700sqm (689.8sqm), a floor space ratio of 0.65:1 is applicable to this site pursuant to Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998). The floor space ratio for a site with an area of less than 700 sqm was introduced in recognition that the development potential of smaller sites is significantly constrained by the narrowness and overall dimensions of such allotments. The development has a floor space ratio of 0.94:1, which does not comply, with the maximum permissible floor space ratio applicable under RLEP 1998.

 

Gross floor area is defined in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as;

 

"means the sum of the areas of each level of a building where the area of each level is taken to be the area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls, excluding:

 

(a)    columns, fin walls, shading devices, awnings, balconies and any other elements, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall, and

 

(b)    lift towers, machinery and plant rooms, and air-conditioning ducts, and

 

(c)    associated car parking and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking, and

 

(d)    space for the loading and unloading of goods"

 

The applicant has not included in the floor space calculations, covered walkways at first and second floor levels, the open staircase, and bicycle/garbage areas located in the building. The staircase would appear to be of an open design and not within the external enclosing walls of the building and as such has not been included in the calculation. However, it is considered that whilst the corridors are also open they have sufficient enclosing elements, and add to the visual bulk of the building and should be included as floor space. To leave these staircase and corridors open is ostensibly an attempt by the applicant to acquire greater habitable floor area at the expense of the amenity of future occupants who will have to negotiate staircase and corridor areas that should not be normally be open to the elements.

 

The applicant has not lodged an amended SEPP 1 Objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1)-Development Standards to the proposal’s departure from this standard.  It is therefore assumed that the applicant is relying on the original objection. In the original objection the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-           The proposed non-compliance with the minimum site area and floor space excess are considered acceptable on the grounds that they are minor and inconsequential variations. The deficient site area and excess floor space would not be discernible from any public or private property. The objective is considered to have been complied with, as the variation to the upper limit has not been significantly varied. The assessment of the associated design and amenity impacts has also shown that the potential for adverse impacts has been considered and suitably addressed.

 

-           In accordance with the objectives of SEPP No.1, it is considered that the proposal promotes orderly use of the land. The site is capable of accommodating adequate parking levels, appropriate floor space and daily operation of the building will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the area.

 

-           The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the 2C zone, which promotes medium density in forms that do not compromise the amenity of surrounding areas. The proposed development is similar in bulk and scale to older and more recent development proposals for multi-unit development on the block bounded by Addison Street, Kensington Road, Grosvenor Street and Lorne Avenue.

 

-           The applicant has attempted to include the neighbouring sites at No.4-6 Grosvenor Street to allow a more comprehensive streetscape approach between the two existing residential flat buildings at No.2 and 12 Grosvenor Street. Letters to the owners of 4 and 6 Grosvenor Street (which are included in the DA submission) reveal the decline in offer for the owners to be included in the proposal. Nevertheless, it is considered that a development similar to the proposal would also be appropriate on the sites at No.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street.

 

-           The proposed height is significantly below the height limit having a maximum height of 10.4 metres, 1.6metres below the height limit of 12 metres. The proposed height ensures that the built form is compatible with the surrounding built forms, including dwelling houses and residential flat buildings. The associated impacts of bulk, scale and overshadowing are also acceptable.

 

-           The proposed development is considered to form a positive contribution to the streetscape and an improvement to the existing residential flat buildings in the locality. The colour perspective images present the proposal as a modern and attractive infill in the medium density zone.

 

-           The proposed floor space excess will not result in any loss of views or outlook from surrounding properties

 

-           The proposed landscape plan compliments the proposed built form and will result in an attractive setting.

 

-           The deficient site area and excess floor space will not result in any aural or visual privacy impacts. The site area and proposed floor space allows for adequate setbacks to each side and to the rear of the development. The proposed ground and upper level landscaping assists in maintaining acceptable privacy levels.

 

-           As the overshadowing diagrams indicate, the proposed floor space will not result in any adverse shadowing impacts.   

 

The objective or purpose of the FSR development standard as outlined in LEP 1998 is:

 

·          To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

The underlying objective of the maximum permissible floor space ratio in the context of smaller sites is to control the intensity, bulk and scale of the proposal and ensure that development conforms to the proportions of smaller sites. 

 

The excessive bulk and scale of the building (as amended) when viewed from adjoining public spaces and private properties remains incompatible with surrounding buildings. The amended building is still excessive in its proportions having regard to the relatively small site. Whilst there is to the north of the site a three-storey multi unit housing building over ground level car parking, development adjoining to the west is a single storey semi detached cottage and to the east a two storey multi unit housing building a over ground level car parking. The bulk and scale of the proposed building being would be incongruous in this setting and would not represent an appropriate transition in bulk and scale between these buildings resulting in a lack of harmony and continuity in the streetscape.  Further, given the adverse impact of the development on adjoining properties in terms of solar access, and building bulk it is considered that the SEPP 1 objection to the floor space ratio could not be supported.

 

Whilst the amended proposal has increased the front setback of the upper level, the proposed building will still be conspicuous in its streetscape context due to not only to its excessive bulk and scale but also due to its inappropriate massing, proportions and architectural detailing.

 

The applicant has made much of the similarities between the site at 6-8 Addison Street and the subject site.  There are significant differences between the urban character of the Addison Street and that of Grosvenor Street.

 

On the south side of Addison Street where the 6-8 Addison Street development site is situated the existing development is characterised by three-storey multi unit housing buildings over parking at grade, which dominate the streetscape due their bulk and scale. The lots at 6-8 Addison Street were surrounded by such buildings and were the last remaining allotments available for redevelopment.  The development at 6-8 Addison Street was therefore able to justify a variation to the maximum FSR standard on the basis that it was compatible in bulk and scale with its neighbours and represented an appropriate streetscape fit.

 

In contrast, whilst Grosvenor Street has some larger scale multi unit housing buildings on the northern side of Grosvenor Street (4 in all), the predominant type of development in the street consists of single storey dwelling houses and two semi detached dwellings, all of a Federation character.  Notably the federation semis are situated to the west of the site at 8-10 Grosvenor Street and as such the proposed development must have regard to the lower scale of development in its overall design and should seek to limit the impact from its density on the adjoining property to the west.

 

Council has adopted a similar approach to a development at 23 Villiers Street, which was 15.5 sqm below the minimum 700sqm requirement.  The proposed development at 23 Villiers Street was approved with an FSR of 0.66:1 in order to minimise the impacts on the single storey dwelling house to the south and represented a reasonable standard of redevelopment commensurate with the development potential of the site.

 

The SEPP No. 1 objection is not well founded and therefore cannot be supported.

 

5.4       Building Height

 

Clause 33 of the RLEP 1988 sets a maximum 12 metre overall height and 10 metre wall height limitation on buildings (other than a dwelling house) in the Residential 2C zone affecting the site, as measured from existing ground level. The amended proposal has a maximum overall height and wall height of 10.2m thereby not complying with the maximum wall height standard applying under Clause 33(4).

 

The applicant has lodged an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1)-Development Standards to the proposal’s departure from the maximum wall height standard. In the objection the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-           The excess is 0.4 metres and is confined to a minor portion of the site. It is considered that at least 98% of the wall height is below the height limit of 10 metres by up to 0.6 metres. The excess does not contribute or create a disorderly use of the land.

 

-           The proposed height limit (overall and wall) is below that of other residential flat buildings along the same side of Grosvenor Street and below those immediately to the rear along Addison Street.

 

-           The additional height does not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding neighbours in regard to overshadowing, loss of outlook or view and loss of privacy.

 

-           The proposed design is considered meritorious and will form an improvement to the streetscape along both sides of Grosvenor Street. The proposed setbacks and landscaping will result in the built form being an attractive addition to the streetscape.  

 

The stated purpose of the building height standards as stated in the LEP are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

Moreover the underlying objectives of the height standards are to:

 

§ Minimise the impact of the development adjoining the nearby land;

§ Control the bulk and scale of development through the imposition of appropriate height limits and

§ Ensure that there is a sympathetic transition between the prevailing scale and character of existing building in the locality and new development.

 

The amended proposal will result in a building, which is still excessive in height in relation to the adjoining buildings to the east and west and to the predominant scale of neighbouring buildings in Grosvenor Street.  Further the proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale and overshadowing.

 

As stated previously the proposal does not represent a reasonable standard of redevelopment commensurate with the development potential of the site. It is implicit in the stated purpose of the height standard that the appropriate height of a development will depend on other development restrictions such as the maximum permissible FSR and minimum landscaping. Thus, if the FSR of a development is found to be excessive then the height of a building must be adjusted to align itself with a smaller building envelope. For example if a site less than 700sqm can only accommodate a floor space ratio of 0.65:1 (due to its dimensions, the level of amenity impacts and the scale of neighbouring development) then the height of any buildings on that site should be restricted to two storeys with a 7m wall height as is required for a multi unit housing building in a 2B zone.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is therefore not considered to be well founded.

 

5.5 Side and Rear Setbacks

 

The numerical setback requirements, which represent the preferred solutions in the DCP – Multi Unit Housing, are quite stringent and the proposal would not comply at several points on the northern, eastern and western elevations. Whether the proposed setbacks are appropriate depends primarily on the performance of the proposed building in relation to its amenity impacts on adjoining properties, the integration of the building within the existing streetscape and its ability to achieve good internal site amenity. In this regard, it is considered that the proposed building is excessive in bulk and scale, results in poor internal site amenity and an unreasonable degree of overshadowing. These issues are addressed in detail in Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 and 5.6 of this report.

 

5.5.1 Privacy and Overlooking

 

The objectives of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing in relation to privacy are to ensure that new development is designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy and that it respects the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

Window openings to the main living areas of the units contained within the proposed building are generally orientated to the front and rear of the building with openings to bedrooms and bathrooms orientated to the side boundaries and the proposed bathroom windows openings having 1.6m sill heights. Planter boxes with plantings to 1.5m in height are proposed to the sides of the proposed first and second floor balconies at the front and rear of the building to restrict the overlooking of adjoining properties. The existing 7m high tree within the rear yard of No.6 Grosvenor Street adjacent to that property’s eastern boundary will also provide some visual screening of the rear balconies of the development from that property.

 

However, whilst the proposal may perform satisfactorily in terms of its privacy impacts on adjoining properties the internal configuration of dwellings within the development results in laundries against walls to adjoining living rooms and bedrooms adjoining living areas.  The building layout does not minimise noise transmission by separating quiet areas of a dwelling for the noise generating areas of neighbouring dwellings.

 

The courtyard areas to the east of the proposed building are not suitably located and would be over looked by the windows in the western elevation of the building at No. 12 Grosvenor Street.

 

The amended proposal is considered acceptable in terms of overlooking and privacy impacts on adjoining properties but does not meet the performance requirements contained in the DCP to ensure aural and visual privacy for the future occupants of the development.

 

5.5.2 Overshadowing/Sunlight Access

 

The main overshadowing impact of the proposed building will affect the adjoining property to the west at No.6 Grosvenor Street in the morning and the property to the east at No.12 Grosvenor Street in the afternoon.

 

The applicant has not provided amended shadow diagrams demonstrating a significant improvement to solar access for the adjoining properties. The proposed building still extends significantly beyond the rear setback of the adjoining western dwelling at No.6 Grosvenor Street causing unnecessary additional overshadowing to the rear yard and windows of No.6 Grosvenor Street in the morning and the rear-most west facing windows of the residential flat building at No.12 Grosvenor Street in the afternoon.

 

However the north facing rear yard areas of the adjoining eastern and western properties would receive a minimum of 3 hours per day to at least 50% of the principal open space area as required by the DCP – Multi Unit Housing.

 

An objective of the DCP is to use siting and layout to achieve year round comfort for occupants of a building. The ground floor units have poor orientation with their living and open space areas situated to the east resulting in a low level of solar access due to the narrow long footprint of the building.  On the upper levels of the proposed building 50% of the units will have a southerly aspect from their living areas and therefore little sun access.

 

The degree of solar access afforded to the future occupants of the development and to the adjoining properties to the east and west is considered unreasonable in the circumstances given the significant non-compliance with the maximum permissible FSR and the breach of the wall height limit and the poor orientation of the proposed dwellings.

 

5.6 Urban Design and Heritage

 

The design principles adopted for the site and the general architectural treatment of the proposed building do not ensure that the development achieves a good fit with the urban context of Grosvenor Street

 

As stated previously a key objective of the Randwick Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing –is to ensure that the appearance multi unit housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and is visually compatible with the identified desired future character for the locality. The DCP identifies a number of main building types that are characteristic of the residential environments of Randwick, and requires that appropriate design criteria be incorporated into new development in respect to massing and proportions, roof design, verandah/balcony and window design so that new buildings enhance and complement the existing urban character.

 

The proposed building is of a modern architectural style, which does not complement the existing urban character of development in Grosvenor Street.  The concept of a contemporary building design on the site is supported. However the building should translate elements found in the predominant built form of Grosvenor Street in terms of its articulation of building parts, massing, proportions and external finishes into a modern architectural expression without mimicking the architectural styles of earlier periods. 

 

The aesthetics of the building are mainly expressed through its large projecting balconies, rendered with banded brickwork detailing to the side elevations, parapet roof form, and combination of solid rendered masonry and open balustrading to the proposed front and rear balconies. The proposed building would be compatible in design with a Type 6-1960s-1980s Walk-up Flats building type profile as identified under Part 2 of the DCP-Multi Unit Housing-Vision for Randwick-Desired Future Character.

 

Although there are some residential flat buildings on the northern side of Grosvenor Street (i.e. 4 in all), the predominant type of development in the street consists of single storey dwelling houses and two semi detached dwellings, all of a Federation character. Further, No 16 Grosvenor Street, which is in close proximity to the site, is identified as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  Part 6.1 of the DCP – Multi-Unit Housing requires new development to respect the significance of any items in close proximity and give precedence to the heritage building in the formulation of its design principles. This would suggest that infill development on the site should in massing and proportions be designed to conform to a Type 3-Federation or Californian Bungalows streetscape profile in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

 

Independent heritage advice sought from City Plan Services confirms that Grosvenor Street is divided between a Type 2-Single Level Federation Terraces or Semis and a Type 3- Federation or Californian Bungalows streetscape. The City Plan report confirms that 17 of the 23 buildings in Grosvenor Street are of a Federation character. As such the proposed development must adopt massing and proportions which are sympathetic to architectural character of a Type 3-Federation or Californian Bungalows streetscape profile in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

 

The architectural character and design of the proposed development does not respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing Federation character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street.

 

The applicant has submitted a letter to Council from Weir & Phillips Architects (accredited heritage consultant) in support of the proposal.  The letter argues that the potential conservation area should be limited to the southern side of the street as it presents as an intact row, and concludes that the proposal will have minimal impact on the more significant southern side of the street.

 

The assessment by Weir & Phillips is deficient in that it does not have regard to Part 2.1 of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing which identifies a desired future character on the basis of infill development being compatible with existing streetscape themes. Further, the assessment attempts to establish a contextual separation between the northern and southern sides of Grosvenor Street, without recognising the “physical and stylistic cohesiveness” of the federation period houses which exist on both sides of the street.  Nine out of the 15 buildings on the northern side of Grosvenor Street (excluding the school) have been identified in the City Plan Services report as contributing to the significant character of the street.

 

The applicant also contends that the proposed building will be largely hidden behind the mature brushbox street trees on Grosvenor Street.  These street trees would not obscure the building to the extent suggested by applicant given that they have been significantly pruned due to their location under electricity cables. In any case a well designed building should not require visual screening.

 

A further assessment has been undertaken by Mr Stephen Buzacott (of BOA Architecture) in relation to the streetscape fit of the proposal provides further justification for seeking a more appropriately designed building.  Mr Buzacott has identified the federation buildings of Grosvenor Street as being generally closely set with only the minimum side setbacks or with narrow driveways between, and as such a design more tailored to this precinct would necessitate a more horizontal built form to the street elevation balanced by a vertical emphasis to its openings. 

 

Mr Buzacott considers that the long narrow built form with long façades to the east and west in conjunction with the excessive floor space has generated a built form, which is out of keeping with the federation character of Grosvenor Street. Instead, Mr Buzacott recommends a built form in two distinct two storey blocks with open space between operating as communal open space. Such a site layout would allow for all the units to have a northerly aspect and reduces the visual length and mass of the proposed building.

 

A 20m minimum frontage is preferred under the DCP – Multi Unit Housing in recognition that narrow or irregular shaped allotments may not be suitable for redevelopment.  The DCP notes that development on these sites may need to be scaled down to reduce the potential for adverse impacts. It is considered that the subject site is unsuitable for a development of this density and height.

 

 Draft SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development is now a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the E.P.& A. Act.  Draft SEPP 65 aims to ensure that residential flat buildings are better designed so that they offer a high degree of liveability, have an appropriate scale, improve the way they look in the streetscape, and are socially and environmentally sustainable.

 

The proposed development will not contribute to the urban character of the area in terms of its internal amenity, scale, massing and external appearance, and as such it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the principles and provisions of Draft SEPP 65.

 

5.7 Front Fence

 

Front fencing should integrate with and contribute to streetscape character. High front fencing can also have a detrimental impact on personal safety by reducing opportunities for casual surveillance. The applicant has indicated that the upper half of the proposed front fence will 50% open in line with the preferred solution contained in the DCP – Multi-Unit Housing. However, the front fence has been set back from the front boundary and due to its height will not integrate with the character of the existing low fencing in Grosvenor Street.

 

5.8 Car Parking and Traffic

 

Under Council’s DCP-Parking, the development would generate a demand for 15 on site car spaces comprising 12 residential and 3 visitor spaces.  Fifteen spaces have been provided within the basement of the building and as such the building’s car parking demands would be predominantly met on site.

 

The proposed car park would have an aisle width of 5.8m which does not comply with the minimum aisle width requirement of 7m pursuant to DCP – Parking. In addition, car spaces 1, 11, 12 ,13, 14, and 15 would require multiple turning movements to access these spaces.  In this regard the applicant has not submitted vehicle-turning diagrams indicating that the car park layout would allow straightforward and safe manoeuvring.

 

Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has advised that the resultant peak hour volume of approximately 7 vehicles per hour is considered low and no significant traffic delays should occur in Grosvenor street as a result of this development. In view of the low volume of traffic movement, the proposal is unlikely to increase the potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

 

Cumulatively, the impact of traffic from further medium density development in the locality is unlikely to overburden the environmental traffic capacity of the area.

 

5.9 Overdevelopment of the site

 

The proposed development fails to comply with the FSR, height and setback requirements, and is incompatible in bulk and scale with adjoining buildings and the streetscape. In view of these departures and the unsuitability of the site for a building of this scale, the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

5.9.5  Resident Submissions

 

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

 

-     Size of driveway opening

 

Comment:

 

The 3.3m height of the proposed driveway opening is considered excessive and could be reduced by a condition of development consent.

 

-     Potential damage to building, noise, dust and general inconvenience during construction

 

Comment:

 

These concerns can be satisfactorily addressed through conditions of consent.

 

-     Increased noise

 

Comment:

 

An increase in density on the site as envisaged under the 2C zoning generates the potential for increased noise from residents and visitors and their vehicles. However, given that the proposal exceeds the maximum FSR for the site the proposed density on the site will unreasonably increase the potential for noise disturbances.

 

-     Effect of proposed excavation for basement car park on the structural integrity of the dwelling/dilapidation report requested.

 

Comment:

 

Dilapidation reports for neighbouring properties would be required to be provided at construction certificate stage by condition of consent.

 

-     Impact on living areas of No.6 Grosvenor Street due to lighting to the pedestrian entry and walkway at night.

 

Comment:

 

Non-intrusive lighting to the pedestrian entry and walkway areas of the development would be required by condition of development consent.

 

-     Impact of smoke from No.6’s chimney on nearby units of the proposed building

 

Comment:

 

This is not considered to present a major issue for concern. Window openings in the western elevation of the dwellings opposite No. 6 are generally limited in size.

 

- Development will attract a transient population      

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the building for rental accommodation will result in any adverse social or amenity impacts.

 

6.         CONCLUSION

 

The amended proposal still represents a significant overdevelopment given the excessive proportions of the building and its incompatibility in bulk and scale with adjoining buildings.  The proposal is also unsatisfactory in terms of its design and external appearance, internal site amenity, parking layout and impact upon adjoining residents.  The SEPP No. 1 Objections lodged in respects to the departures from the FSR, height provisions of RLEP 1998 have not demonstrated that departure from these standards is necessary, reasonable or well founded.

 

In light of the findings and recommendations of the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study by Godden Mackay Logan, June 2001 and the independent heritage advice obtained from City Plan Heritage in relation to the Federation heritage qualities and character of Grosvenor Street all new development in Grosvenor Street must respect its established character and amenity value.

 

A development of a lesser FSR of (or close to) 0.65:1 would allow a building design which responds more appropriately to the predominant architectural style and character of existing development in the street and will provide a better level of site amenity.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 933/2001 for Demolition of the two existing dwelling houses and the construction of a three storey (4 level) multi unit housing development comprising 10 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedroom dwellings with associated basement car parking at 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposal does not comply with the Aims of Clauses 2 (e) and (g) and the Objectives of Clause 12(1) (c) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.     

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the stated purposes of Clauses 32 and 33 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in relation to floor space ratio and wall height, and the State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objections in relation to the proposal’s departures from Clauses 32(1) and (2), and 33(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in particular, are not considered to be well founded and justified.

 

3.         The proposal is inconsistent with and contrary to the Objectives and identified Requirements of the following Parts contained in the Randwick Development Control Plan-Multi Unit Housing:

 

-           Part 2.1-Vision for Randwick-Desired Future Character (Type 3 Streetscape)

-           Part 3.1- Site Planning (P1, P2 and S2), Part 3.2- Height (P2), Part 3.3- Building Setbacks (P2 and P3), Part 3.4-Density (P1), Part 3.5- Fences (P1).

-           Part 4.1-Landscaping and Private Open Space (P2), Part 4.2- Privacy (P1).

-           (P2) Part 5.3-Storage (P1).

-           Part 6.1-Heritage Conservation and/or Heritage Items (P3).

 

4.         The proposal does not comply with the Aims, Objectives, Requirements and standards of Randwick Development Control Plan-Parking. In respect to manoeuvrability within the basement car park.

 

5.         The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

 

6.         The proposal would have an adverse impact upon local residential amenity in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, and provides inadequate landscaping along the western boundary for an effective visual buffer.

 

7.         The architectural character and design of the proposed development does not respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street.

 

8.         The proposal does not comply with the principle and provisions of Draft SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and result in poor internal site amenity.

 

9.         The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Clause 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, as the proposed building will have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of No. 16 Grosvenor Street.

 

10.       The proposed development would create an undesirable precedent for future development in Grosvenor Street.

 

11.       The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

12.       The proposal does not adequately address issues/concerns raised in resident submissions.

 

13.       The proposal has not provided adequate details relating to the proposed material, texture, colour, style and type of finish to be used in the exterior of the proposed building.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         A4 plans

2.         Urban Design Review by S. Buzacott - February 2002 and City Plan Services January  2002 -  (Both under Separate cover)

3.         Committee Report dated 17 January 2002

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY KYRIACOU

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ACTING MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 







 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

17 January, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0933/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the two existing dwelling houses and the construction of a three storey (4 level) multi unit housing development comprising 14 x one bedroom dwellings with associated basement car parking

PROPERTY:

 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Eastern Projects Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors John Procopiadis, Peter Schick and Dominic Sullivan .

 

The application was notified/advertised to adjoining and nearby property owners and a number of submissions by way of objection to the proposal were received. The main concerns/issues raised in submissions relate to proposed non-compliances with site area/ FSR, side and rear boundary setback, and parking standards, privacy and overlooking, overshadowing/loss of light, visual bulk and scale, and design compatibility with existing development in the streetscape.

 

Amended plans and supporting additional documentation were submitted to Council on 11 January. The amended plans are the subject of this report.

 

The main issues regarding the proposed development relate to floor space ratio, on-site car parking provision, streetscape design and compatibility, visual bulk and scale as viewed from neighbouring residential properties, the proposed removal of an existing significant tree within the rear of the site which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and provision for soft landscaping. 

 

Approval of the application requires Council’s support of objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 in relation to the proposal’s departure from the FSR, landscape area and wall height standards of Randwick LEP1998.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks approval to demolish the 2 existing single storey, Federation-style dwelling houses on the site and to erect a three storey (4 level) multi unit housing development comprising 14 x one bedroom dwellings over three levels, with associated basement car parking for 14 vehicles, associated fencing and landscaping works.

 

Each proposed dwelling would contain open-plan living, dining and kitchen areas, a bathroom, laundry and separate bedroom. A balcony or courtyard terrace area and one car parking space are to be provided for each dwelling.

 

A centrally positioned driveway will provide access to the basement car park of the development from Grosvenor Street. A pedestrian entry and access way is proposed along the western side boundary of the site.

 

As it is proposed that the basement car park extend the width of the site, the majority of the soft landscaping for the site along its side boundaries is proposed in the form of 1.0 m deep planter boxes. More significant in-ground planting is proposed to the front and rear of the proposed building.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the northern side of Grosvenor Street, Kensington. The site comprises two regular shaped allotments, Nos.8 and 10 Grosvenor Street, each occupied by a single storey Federation-style dwelling house and with a combined frontage to Grosvenor Street of 15.24m, a depth of 45.265m and site area 689.8m2 The site has a fall from front to rear of about 900mm.

 

Adjoining to the east is a two- storey brick residential flat building with undercroft car parking at No.12 Grosvenor Street, and to the west a pair of single storey, Federation-style dwellings at Nos.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street. Adjoining to the north (i.e. rear) are three storey brick residential flat buildings fronting Addison Street.

 

Development in Grosvenor Street comprises predominantly single storey, Federation style dwellings, both free-standing and semi-detached, with some two and three storey residential flat buildings interspersed along the northern side of the street.

 

To the west, on Kensington Road are the Lady of the Rosary Church and School buildings.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

8 Grosvenor Street:

66/00015/BZ      Addition. Approved 1966.    

 

10 Grosvenor Street:

01/00285/GA       Demolition of rear timber frame addition and construct new family room addition and deck. Approved 27/04/01. 

                               

01/00331/TA       Application to remove existing tree in rear yard. Refused 09/05/01    

                 

01/00383/JA        Rear family room addition & deck.   Approved 31/05/01. 

 

Following a preliminary assessment of the application, the applicant was advised by letter dated 6 December 2001 of a number of issues/concerns identified with the proposal, relating to FSR, building bulk, wall height, landscaping provision, building setbacks, car parking, the removal of a significant tree covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and urban design. On 13 December 2001, a meeting was held between Council officers and the applicant to discuss the issues/concerns raised.

 

On 11 January 2002 the applicant submitted amended plans incorporating amendments to the size and treatments of the proposed balcony areas at the front and rear of the building resulting in increased setbacks from the western side and rear boundaries.  The amended plans also included extensions to the floor plan footprints of Units 7 and 8 on the first floor level, together with supporting documentation seeking to address issues raised at the meeting. The amended plans are the subject of this report.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The amended plans were not notified as they represented only minor variations to the original application. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1       Objections

 

5.1.1    Individual Submissions

 

E Hanley

13 Grosvenor Street

KENSINGTON 2033

 

Concerns:

-       provision for on-site car parking.

 

Mrs M Ackerman

7/12 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-       loss of light/sunlight

-       design and appearance

-       building height

-       size of driveway opening

-       on-street parking impact

 

Mrs B Hodge

16 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-     on-street parking impact

 

R Greenwell

7 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-     on-street parking impact

 

Mr M and Mrs M Mifsud

C/- Craig Sewell Estate Agents

            75 Belmore Road

RANDWICK 2031

(owners 1/12 Grosvenor Street)

 

Concerns:

-       density/number of units

-     on-street parking impact

-     potential damage to building, noise, dust and general inconvenience during construction

-     non-compliances with minimum site area, floor space ratio and car parking standards

 

B and G Compton

14 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-       design and appearance

-     density

-     floor space ratio

-     on-street parking impact

-     potential for increased dumping of rubbish in street

-     overdevelopment of the street

 

            J Murphy

            6/12 Grosvenor Street

 

            Concerns:

-     inadequate provision for on site car parking/impact on on-street parking

-     loss of afternoon sunlight

-     loss of privacy from proposed balconies

-     increased noise

 

S Gillen

6 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-     non- compliances with site area, FSR, setback and car parking standards

-     amenity impacts including visual bulk and scale, overlooking/loss of privacy, and overshadowing.

-     overdevelopment of the site

-     effect of proposed excavation for basement car park on the structural integrity of the dwelling/dilapidation report requested

-     provision for deep planting and landscaping, including common open space

-     solar access to the six units facing Grosvenor Street

-     building design and streetscape appearance

-     additional bulk resulting from masonry panel surrounds to the proposed balconies, and the massing and proportioning of the proposed building

-     building design articulation/does not meet design standards of DCP-Multi Unit Housing eg. pitched gable roof forms addressing the street

-     lack of dwelling mix 

-     impact on living areas due to noise from future occupants using pedestrian access way along common boundary and lighting to the access way at night

-     proposed 1.8m high solid masonry, front fencing does not meet preferred solution of the DCP

-     loss of outlook from east facing, living area windows

-     impact of smoke from No.6’s chimney on nearby units of the proposed building

-     increased traffic and on-street parking congestion

 

D Malanos

4 Grosvenor Street

 

Concerns:

-     non-compliances with FSR and setback requirements

-     building bulk

-     impacts on adjoining properties Nos.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street in terms of overlooking/loss of privacy, increased noise, traffic and overshadowing

-     height and design of proposed front fencing not compatible with existing front fencing.

-     impact of smoke from No.4 and 6’s chimney on nearby units of the proposed building

 

S C Clark

5 Grosvenor Street

 

            Concerns:

-     non-compliances with site area/ FSR, side and rear boundary setback, and parking standards

-     on-site parking provision/non-compliance with Parking DCP

-     no provision for bicycle parking indicated in the plans

-     height and design of proposed front fencing not compatible with existing front fencing.

-     density

-     impact on-street car parking

-     building design and appearance/ out of character with the locality and inconsistent with DCP for multi-unit housing.

-     removal of existing tree

     

5.1.2    Petition

 

One petition containing 57 signatures, mainly from residents of Grosvenor Street has been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

 

-     impact of proposal on the residential character, heritage value and ambience of Grosvenor Street due to the proposed density of development

-     impact on on-street parking space

-     non-compliances with FSR/site area, side and rear boundary setback, and on-site car parking standards.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Landscape Issues

 

There are a number of trees, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a)         One Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located within the rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is a significant species, approximately 15 metres tall and in good health. The tree provides valuable screening to the surrounding properties. As such this tree should be retained and protected as part of this application. A valuation of the tree has been undertaken finding the tree to have an amenity value of $30,000.00. Should the removal of this tree be approved by Council or Court Order then a minimum number of six (6) 200 litre replacement trees are required.

 

b)         One Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located within the front yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is approximately 10 metres tall with a broad canopy and in good health. As such this tree should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

c)         One Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) located within the rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in good health, however it is not a significant species within the Randwick area and as such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

d)         Two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located within Council’s nature strip. Both of these trees are approximately 8 metres tall, with broad canopies and in good health. As such they should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

e)         One Hibiscus tiliaceus (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) located within the rear yard of No.8 Grosvenor Street. This tree is an immature specimen, approximately 6 metres tall and leaning over the existing shed. Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

f)          One Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) located within the rear yard of No.8 Grosvenor Street, close to the rear boundary. This tree is approximately 7 metres tall and in good health. As such this tree should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

Attached is a report prepared by Council’s Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinators, which provides an assessment of the existing significant Gum Tree located in the rear yard of the property No.10 Grosvenor Street. The proposed development would require the removal of this tree. The report makes reference to an arborist’s report prepared by Andrew Burnett of Burnett Trees for the applicant and submitted in support of the application on 11 January 2002.

 

In the report submitted by the applicant’s arborist, the species of the tree has been identified as Eucalyptus nicholii (Narrow-leaf Peppermint Gum).

 

Council’s Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinators do not concur with the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the applicant’s arborist report and recommend that the tree should be retained.

 

In order for this tree to be retained in good health, the design of the proposed development will need to be amended to show a minimum clearance of six (6) metres from the trunk of the tree to any construction, including basement car park. Any re-design would be required to be supported by an arborist's report.

 

6.2       Drainage Issues

 

            Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

6.3       Traffic/Parking Issues

 

Under Council’s DCP-Parking, 18 car parking spaces comprising 14 residential and 4 visitor spaces are required for the proposed development. 14 spaces are proposed, comprising 13 residential and 1 visitor car space within a basement level car park. A Traffic and Parking Report prepared by Traffix –Traffic and Transport Planners has been submitted in support of the application.

 

As the number of car parking spaces provided in the development does not comply with the requirements of DCP-Parking, a copy of the application and accompanying traffic/parking report and a subsequent supplementary traffic/parking report lodged on 11 January 2001 was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for assessment and comments. The Traffic Engineer’s advice is provided below:

 

I refer to your Department’s request of 15 January 2002 for parking comments on the Traffic Impact Assessment report prepared by Traffix dated September 2001 and Supplementary Report by Traffix dated December 2001 for the above development.

 

I understand that the applicant is seeking a relaxation of Council’s requirement for parking as specified in Council’s current DCP-Parking.

 

An analysis and review of the parking generation of the proposed development was calculated and is shown below:

 

Council’s DCP

1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling or bed sitter unit over 40m2 = 14 units x 1       = 14 cars paces

Visitor parking:  1 space per 4 dwellings or part thereof                                                              = 0.25 x 14 = 3.5        =  

                                                                                                4 car spaces

TOTAL                                                                                    =18 carspaces

 

RTA – Sect 5.4.2

The RTA’s recommended minimum number of off-street resident parking spaces for medium density residential flat buildings is 1 space for each unit and an additional one space per each five units for visitor parking or part thereof.

 

14 units x 1 = 14 car spaces + 1 space per each 5 units (visitor) = 3    =17 car spaces.

 

Comment:

 

It is noted that Traffix has also compared the parking rate for studio dwellings in Council’s DCP and using this lower parking ratio of 1 space per two studio dwellings, only 11 car spaces (7 resident car spaces + 4 visitor car spaces) are required.

 

The proposed 14 car spaces equates to a ratio of approximately 0.7 car spaces per unit which is somewhere between Council’s requirements for each type of one bedroom unit.

 

The attached supplementary report is noted that included the results of parking surveys conducted on Saturday 15th, Sunday 16th and Monday 17th December 2001 between 10.00am and 8.00pm.

 

The survey results did not indicate the breakdown of vacant parking for each of the streets and indicated that on a weekend there is significantly less on-street parking available on the Saturday and Sunday evenings and Sunday morning during Church services.

 

The site was inspected at 7.00pm on Thursday, 17 January 2002 and it was noted that Masses are also held on Wednesday evenings at 7pm (not shown in Traffix report).  There were only 3 vacant car spaces in Grosvenor Street near the subject site and Kensington Road was generally vacant.

 

Also, kerbside parking in the vicinity of the development is subject to parking restrictions for the primary school that abuts both sides of Grosvenor Street and Kensington Road.  

 

Properties in Grosvenor Street are a mix of medium density residential flat buildings and residential dwellings with some semidetached dwellings.  A number of semidetached dwellings have no off-street parking i.e. Nos 6, 16 and 18.

 

The eastern end of Grosvenor Street intersects with Lorne Avenue with similar properties and a motel on the corner of Anzac Parade is the subject of redevelopment.  Some properties in Lorne Avenue including an old apartment block do not contain off-street parking.  This street is also subject to some commuter parking.

 

Conclusion:

 

Comments are made to those conclusions supplied by Traffix as shown below:

 

Ø  A threshold has been set in the DCP and although the proposed unit area is only marginally above this, the 1 space per unit ratio should be adopted for this area and is similar to the RTA recommended figure.

 

Ø  Whilst, it is recognised that there are excellent public bus services in Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue which could be used Monday – Friday, there would still be a need for adequate parking on weekends and for visitor parking.

 

Ø  Any new development should improve parking conditions in the residential street. When the older dwellings were built there was not the same demand for parking.

 

Ø  The reported 40 parking spaces within 50m of the site is excessive and more likely to be 10 – 16 spaces depending on driveways etc.  The visitor parking from the development should not be transferred onto the local residential streets as there is already demand generated for on-street parking in the affected streets by the existing land uses.

 

Ø  The on-street parking generated by evening Masses on weekends and midweek will have an effect on visitor parking demands.  This weekend demand was shown in the Traffix report.

 

Ø  There is no substantial on-street parking vacancies in Grosvenor Street and vacant on-street parking in Kensington Road is reduced on weekends as mentioned above.

 

Ø  On-street parking in Kensington Road would not be considered to be attractive to visitors as it is in a generally isolated location with probable security concerns and is subject to parking by parishioners and parents of school children.

 

Ø  The Church and associated uses have occupied the site for a long time and were not subject to the same traffic generation that occurs at present.

 

It should also be noted from Council’s Planning Scheme maps that Grosvenor Street (northern side) and Lorne Avenue are zoned Residential C and are subject to future medium density developments.  Parking and traffic generation should be carefully considered in these areas.

 

On the basis of the above comments, the proposed development is not supported as the on-site parking is deficient by 4 car spaces and the visitor parking from the development should not be transferred onto the local residential streets as there is already demand generated for on-street parking in the affected streets by the existing land uses.

 

6.5       Urban Form and Desired Future Character

 

The proposed development is located in the ‘Grosvenor Street Area’ which is recommended as a Conservation Area in the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study by Godden Mackay Logan (G.M.L.), June 2001. Photos of Nos 8 and 10 Grosvenor Street are included as examples in the report which describes the Grosvenor Street Area as ‘…a small street terminating in the garden of the Convent. It contains a group of Federation period houses that have a high degree of physical and stylistic cohesiveness…’ The report goes on to say that the Grosvenor Street Area has the potential to demonstrate the development of Kensington as an early, detached, middle class suburb and that it provides good examples of Federation houses.

 

Section 2.1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing-Vision for Randwick-Desired Future Character identifies a number of main building types that are characteristic of the residential environments of Randwick. Appropriate design criteria is identified for each building type in relation to massing, and roof, verandah/balcony and window design.

 

As the application was prepared on the basis of a Type 6 Streetscape-1960’s-1980’s Walk Up Flats which differed from the Department’s view that a Type 3 streetscape-Federation or Californian Bungalows should apply, independent advice was sought from City Plan Services-Planning and Building Heritage Consultants to determine which building type profile should be used to assess the proposal. Advice was also sought as to whether the consultants concurred with the recommendations of the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study regarding the character and significance of the Grosvenor Street Conservation Area and the need for statutory heritage conservation planning controls.

 

In their advice, City Plan Services concluded that Grosvenor Street is divided between a Type 2 and Type 3 streetscape in accordance with the guidelines of the DCP, and that they concur with the recommendations of the G.M.L Study. Furthermore, the consultants conclude that infill buildings in Grosvenor Street should ideally be single storey detached or semi detached dwellings, and the G.M.L Study’s recommendation that the existing 2C zoning of the north side of Grosvenor Street should be amended due to its inconsistency with a Conservation Area listing is also concurred with. Due to the existing step down in building heights generally, from 3 storeys in Addison Street to single storey on the south side of Grosvenor Street, the advice suggests that there is some limited potential for Type 3-style infill development to a maximum of two storeys on the northern side of Grosvenor Street.

 

A copy of the advice is attached.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

-     State Environmental Planning Policy No.1-Development Standards

-     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-     Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 - Min. Lot Size

No minimum lot size

689.8sq.m.

N/A

31 - Landscape Area

Min. 50% of site area to be provided as landscaped area

 

Not more than 50% of the required landscaped area to be provided over podiums or excavated basement

areas

359.08m2 = 52.05%

 

 

Approximately 62% over excavated basement car park area.

Yes

 

 

No. SEPP 1 objection submitted. Refer to section 9.1.1 of report.

32 – FSR

0.65:1 for sites less than 700sq.m in area 

1.03:1 as calculated (0.95:1 applicant’s figure)

No. SEPP No.1 objection lodged. Refer to section 9.1 of report.

33 - Building Height

Wall height=10.0m

 

 

 

Max.height=12m

 

Max.wall height =10.4m

 

 Max.Height =10.4m

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

N/A

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

No

Refer to Sections 6.5 and 9.4 of report

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No (Note: Nearest Heritage Item at No.16 Grosvenor Street)

N/A

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance solutions)

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1            The front setback consistent  with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2            Ensure that:

·              solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·              privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·              Landscaping and private open space provided.

·              Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Proposed front setbacks range from 3.2m up to 6.5m, which are consistent with adjoining and nearby buildings in the streetscape.

 

 

 

Minimum average setbacks:

 

East side boundary = 3.0m overall (3.0m at second floor level) - Does not comply.

.

West side boundary = 3.5m overall (3.9m at second floor level) - Does not comply.

 

 

East side boundary = min. 1.5m - Does not comply.

 

West side boundary = min.1.5m - Does not comply.

 

Complies.

 

 

Does not meet preferred solution but satisfies relevant objectives and performance requirements.

 

Rear Boundary Setback

P3            Ensure that:

·              solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·              Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·              Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·              Building built across site.

S3 Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

 

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

 

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Average setback = approx.6.4m to rear balcony planter edges. Does not comply.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

General

P4            Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties.

 

S4  No device may encroach no more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

 

Complies.

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Proposed building is three storeys and is generally compatible in height with other three storey residential flat buildings further east on this side of Grosvenor Street and to the rear addressing Addison Street. Proposed building exceeds the height and bulk of the immediately adjoining residential flat building to the east at No.12 Grosvenor Street and the immediately adjoining single storey semi-detached dwellings to the west at Nos 4 and 6 Grosvenor Street. The reduced setbacks of the proposed building from the side boundaries and the proposed balcony and parapet treatments also add to the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the street and neighbouring properties.

 

FENCES

P1           

·              Front fences consistent with streetscape.

·              Entrances highlighted.

·              Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1            Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

1.8m high solid masonry fencing is proposed to the front of the building. The proposed front fencing does not meet the preferred solution, performance requirements or objectives of the DCP. Compliance may be achieved by conditions of consent.

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

See Section 9.1.1 of report.

 

P2 Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided communal open space.

 

Private recreational open space  around building allocated for use by ground floor units only. Does not comply.

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3           

·              Provides privacy.

·          is accessible from main living areas.

 

P4           In front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

Proposal complies with preferred solution.

 

 

Private courtyards for Units 1 and 2 proposed to front of building.  Front fence height and design incompatible with the dominant character of the streetscape. Does not comply.

 

Townhouses, row housing, villa housing etc

P5  Dwellings provided with useable private open space at ground or podium level.

 

 

 

S5  Minimum area of 25 m2 of private open space with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

N/A

 

Flats and apartments

 

P6 Dwellings have direct access to courtyard, balcony,  deck or roof garden.

 

 

S6    Minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

 

Proposal satisfactorily meets the preferred solution and performance requirement.

 

PRIVACY

.3                    Visual Privacy

 

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

.4                    Acoustic Privacy

 

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise.

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation . Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Window opening to main living areas are generally orientated to the front and rear of the building with openings to bedrooms and bathrooms orientated to the side boundaries, the proposed bathroom windows openings having 1.6m sill heights. Planter boxes proposed to the sides of balconies to restrict overlooking of adjoining properties. Preferred solution and performance requirement is satisfactorily met.

 

Proposal satisfactorily meets preferred solution.

 

 

 

 

Proposal complies with performance requirement.

 

 

 

As per BCA requirements.

VIEW SHARING

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

P3 Buildings and dwellings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No significant views available.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

 

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

* If less than this is available the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

 

 

 

 

See Section 9.3.2 of report.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Performance requirement and adjectives will not be satisfactorily met. See Section 9.3.2 of report

 

 

Assessment indicates performance requirement will be satisfactorily met. See Section 9.3.2 of report.

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·              Living areas are orientated to   the north.

·              Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

Note:

Central ducted heating/cooling system requires a  minimum of 4.5 stars Nat HERS rating.

 

 

 

 

 

Nat HERS Certificate provided. Proposal complies with preferred solution.

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Solar collector roof area to face 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west of north, and slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal.

Proposal does not comply with preferred solution as a flat roof behind a roof parapet is proposed.

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

No fixed external clothes drying facilities are indicated as being proposed, although the courtyard terrace and private open space areas serving the ground floor units and the balcony areas serving each of the first and second floor units could be used for external clothes drying. 

 

P8 No rainforest timbers or old growth forest timbers used. Materials have low environmental impact. 

 

Proposed building to be of concrete and brick construction with aluminium framed windows. Proposal would comply with preferred solution.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1 Design allows surveillance. P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

 

 

 

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

Proposal satisfactorily meets performance requirement.

 

 

Does not comp1y. 1.8m high solid masonry fencing is proposed to the front of the building thereby reducing visibility of ground floor unit window/door openings from the street.

 

Complies. Automatic panel lift security door proposed to basement car park entry.

 

Proposal can be conditioned to comply.

 

No provision for lighting of entry/access ways indicated on the plans.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

PARKING

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P2 Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Basement car park entry centrally located at the front of the building. Height of car park opening is approximately 3.3m, which could be reduced by condition of consent.

 

Not required, as development does not contain more than 14 dwellings.

 

Bicycle storeroom provided adjacent to car park entry. Proposal satisfactorily meets performance requirement.

 

Note:  The parking requirements are set in Randwick Parking DCP. The requirements are:

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed : 14spaces comprising 13 private and 1 visitor/wash bay space.

 

Required: 18 spaces comprising 14 private and 4 visitor spaces.

 

Does not comply with requirements of DCP-Parking. Traffic Parking Assessment report submitted with application. See Sections 6.4 and 9.2 of report.

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Proposed: 1visitor/wash bay space

Required: 4 visitor spaces. Traffic Parking Assessment report submitted with application. See Section 9.—of report.

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

Proposal complies with performance requirement.

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

S2  Vehicles enter parking spaces with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

Turning/manoeuvring access from car spaces 1 to 10 in the basement car park complies with preferred solution. 3-point turning movements, however, are required to exit site in a forward direction from the proposed parallel car spaces Nos.11, 12, 13 and the visitor/carwash bay space.  Proposed turning/manoeuvring access to and from site is generally acceptable.

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Proposal satisfactorily complies.

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

The width of the proposed driveway accessing the basement car park of the building is 3.3m. Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department has recommended a minimum driveway width of 5.0m be provided within the front setback of the building, which could be required by condition of consent although landscaped are to the front of the building would be reduced.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

No details of driveway finishes provided. Compliance could be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

Proposed ramp gradients satisfactory.

STORAGE

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1  10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1 metres.

 

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area.

Storage facilities may be in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages.

No storage spaces are proposed.  Proposal does not comply with preferred solutions or performance requirement.

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

P1 Design must provide access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

Compliance may be achieved by conditions of consent.

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 and so on.

The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

 

 

Complies. 14 dwellings are proposed therefore no disabled parking space is required.

 

 

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

N/A

 

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

 

 

N/A

UTILITIES/

SITE FACILITIES

 

P1 Mail Delivery

in accordance with Australia Post.

 

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P2Television/Radio Antennae and Satellite Dishes

Single common television/radio antenna and communication reception.

 

Compliance can be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P3   Electricity

In accordance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

 

Electrical reticulation underground.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P4 Gas

Meter for each dwelling and to optimum service points.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

 

P5 Water Supply 

In accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

 

P6 Telephone

In accordance with the service provider.

 

As per Authority’s requirements. Compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

 

P7 Laundry and Drying Facilities

·              An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

·              Communal clothes drying accessible and screened from the street and public places.

 

 

 

Proposal complies.

 

 

 

None proposed, however, compliance may be achieved by condition of consent.

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

S1  Storage cupboard in each kitchen sufficient which enables separation of recyclable material.

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

Details not provided.

 

P2  Garbage and recycling containers in centralised garbage/ recycling room accessible to garbage compactors where bins can be easily wheeled for collection. Facilities to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

Proposal complies. Proposed garbage storage are could be increased in size if required.

 

P3  Collection facilities complement design of the development and are not obtrusive.

S3  Waste facilities not to be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

Proposal complies. Garbage room proposed at basement level adjacent to car park entry

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

            The Aims of Randwick LEP 1998, as stated under Clause 2 of the LEP include:

 

(e)        to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City, and

 

(g)        to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

 

The Objectives of the Residential 2C zone, as stated under Part 12(1) of the LEP include:

 

(c)        to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with and contrary to the above aims and objectives of the LEP. 

 

The architectural character and design of the proposed development does not respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street and would have an adverse impact upon local residential amenity in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, and lack of adequate provision for on-site parking. These issues are discussed in detail below.

 

9.1.1    Landscaped Area-Clause 31

 

Clause 31(2) of the LEP requires a minimum of 50 % of the site area to be provided as landscaped area. The proposal provides a total landscaped area of approximately 309 sq.m. which corresponds to 52% of the site area.

 

Clause 31(3) of the LEP requires that not more than 50% of the required landscaped area be provided over podiums or excavated basement areas. The proposal provides approximately 62% of the required landscaped area over the basement carpark of the development.

 

The applicant has lodged an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1)-Development Standards to the proposal’s departure from this standard. In the objection, the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-           the excess is 12% and is considered to be a minor variation in light of the improved landscape setting displayed on the formal landscape plan that will be maintained on this site

 

-           the excess does not contribute or create a disorderly use of the site

 

-           the proposed landscaping around the site is considerably greater than the           older forms of residential flat buildings along Grosvenor and Addison Streets

 

-           the proposed landscape design will still achieve the benefits of deep soil planting as the planter boxes along the perimeters will have a depth of 1 metre. A similar design has been approved and successfully achieved at Borrodale Road by the same applicant. The landscaping will also be self-irrigating and well maintained. the proposed landscape design is not responsible for any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding neighbours in regard to overshadowing, loss of outlook or view and loss of privacy.

 

-           The proposed landscaping enhances the modern design, which is considered meritorious and will form an improvement to the streetscape along both sides of Grosvenor Street. The proposed landscaping will result in the built form being an attractive addition to the streetscape. The design also promotes utilisation of common and private open space areas and allows for adequate run-off

 

-           The development approval at No.6-8 Addison Street on the same block as the subject site was granted approval having similar characteristics to the proposed departure. 

 

Assessment:

 

The purpose of the development standard as stated in the LEP is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban run-off and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

Although the total proposed landscaped area of the development complies, the proposal makes inadequate provision for deep soil planting along the sides of the building to provide visual screening and softening of the development from the neighbouring eastern and western properties. Most of the proposed landscaping along the sides of the building is confined to planter boxes having a proposed 1.0m soil depth and planter widths of only 500mm along the western side and 900mm along the eastern side.

 

The amount of floor space and the number and type of dwellings proposed, has resulted in the footprint of the proposed building extending significantly beyond the rear setbacks of the adjoining buildings. Furthermore, the car parking demand generated by the development necessitates a longer car park footprint on the site thereby reducing opportunities for the provision of deep soil planting beyond the rear setbacks of adjoining buildings.

 

 

The proposal is not considered to adequately achieve the objective of the standard of softening the visual impact of development.

 

Only approximately 13.6% of the site area will be provided as soft permeable area, which represents only approximately 27 .2% of the required landscaped area for the development.

 

The proposal is not considered to adequately achieve the objective of the standard of reducing urban run-off.

 

The proposed development does not provided common recreational open space at ground level for use by all residential units of the building. The main areas of private outdoor recreational open space on the site are to be allocated to individual units on the ground floor level of the building. 

 

The proposal is not considered to adequately achieve the objective of the standard of providing adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

The SEPP 1 objection to the standard is not considered to be well founded

 

9.1.2    Floor Space Ratio

 

Clause 32 (1) of the LEP requires a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1 for buildings (other than a dwelling house) in a Residential 2C zone. Clause 32 (2) of the LEP, however, requires a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 for sites within a Residential 2C zone that are less than 700m2 in area.

 

The site has an area of 689.8sq m and therefore a 0.65:1 FSR applies to the site.

 

The proposed development has a calculated FSR of approximately 1.03:1 (0.95:1-applicant’s figure).

 

The applicant has lodged an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1)-Development Standards to the proposal’s departure from this standard. In the objection the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-           The proposed non-compliance with the minimum site area and floor space excess are considered acceptable on the grounds that they are minor and inconsequential variations. The deficient site area and excess floor space would not be discernible from any public or private property. The objective is considered to have been complied with, as the variation to the upper limit has not been significantly varied. The assessment of the associated design and amenity impacts has also shown that the potential for adverse impacts has been considered and suitably addressed.

 

-           In accordance with the objectives of SEPP No.1, it is considered that the proposal promotes orderly use of the land. The site is capable of accommodating adequate parking levels, appropriate floor space and daily operation of the building will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the area.

 

-           The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the 2C zone, which promotes medium density in forms that do not compromise the amenity of surrounding areas. The proposed development is similar in bulk and scale to older and more recent development proposals for multi-unit development on the block bounded by Addison Street, Kensington Road, Grosvenor Street and Lorne Avenue.

 

-           The applicant has attempted to include the neighbouring sites at No.4-6 Grosvenor Street to allow a more comprehensive streetscape approach between the two existing residential flat buildings at No.2 and 12 Grosvenor Street. Letters to the owners of 4 and 6 Grosvenor Street (which are included in the DA submission) reveal the decline in offer for the owners to be included in the proposal. Nevertheless, it is considered that a development similar to the proposal would also be appropriate on the sites at No.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street.

 

-           The proposed height is significantly below the height limit having a maximum height of 10.4 metres, 1.6metres below the height limit of 12 metres. The proposed height ensures that the built form is compatible with the surrounding built forms, including dwelling houses and residential flat buildings. The associated impacts of bulk, scale and overshadowing are also acceptable.

 

-           The proposed development is considered to form a positive contribution to the streetscape and an improvement to the existing residential flat buildings in the locality. The colour perspective images present the proposal as a modern and attractive infill in the medium density zone.

 

-           The proposed floor space excess will not result in any loss of views or outlook from surrounding properties

 

-           The proposed landscape plan compliments the proposed built form and will result in an attractive setting.

 

-           The deficient site area and excess floor space will not result in any aural or visual privacy impacts. The site area and proposed floor space allows for adequate setbacks to each side and to the rear of the development. The proposed ground and upper level landscaping assists in maintaining acceptable privacy levels.

 

-           As the overshadowing diagrams indicate, the proposed floor space will not result in any adverse shadowing impacts.   

 

Assessment:

 

The purpose of the floor space ratio standards as stated in the LEP is to establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The underlying objective of the floor space ratio standard is to control the bulk and scale of development to minimise adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the streetscape, and to ensure that the density of development is appropriate to the existing and desired future character of an area.  Floor space ratios are also used to control the intensity of development to a level that is commensurate with the traffic capacity of the local street system.

 

The proposal has been calculated to have a FSR of 1.03:1 (applicant’s figure-0.95:1), which significantly exceeds the 0.65:1 FSR standard applying under Clauses 32 (2) of Randwick LEP1998. Further, the proposed balconies, their associated planters and solid masonry panel surrounds on the south-western corner and the rear of the building at first and second floor levels, contribute additional visual bulk and mass to the proposed building. While nominated as ‘balconies’ in the plans, these areas do not present as elements, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external walls, but present rather as part of the mass and primary form of the building. If included as floor space, these areas would render a FSR for the development more equivalent to 1.1:1.   

 

The proposed building, as a direct consequence of its floor space, extends significantly beyond the rear setbacks of adjoining buildings and results in reduced set backs from both the side and rear boundaries of the site. This is considered to result in a building of excessive visual bulk and scale as viewed from neighbouring properties. The proposed FSR of the development also generates a car parking demand that cannot be adequately met on-site. Furthermore, the proposed development will result in the loss of an existing significant tree specimen covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order within the existing rear yard of No.10 Grosvenor Street, which should be retained for its current and future visual amenity and streetscape values. The tree could be retained if compliance (or closer compliance) with the 0.65:1 FSR standard was achieved    

 

As the site falls only 10.2 sq.m. short of the minimum site area of 700sq.m required for a 0.9:1 maximum FSR to apply, a nominal maximum FSR somewhere between 0.65:1 and 0.9:1 would be reasonable to apply to the development of this site.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is not considered to be well founded.

 

9.1.3    Building Height

 

Clause 33(2) of the LEP requires that the maximum height of a building (other than a dwelling house) is 12 metres as measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

Clause 33(4) of the LEP requires that the maximum height of any external wall of a building (other than a dwelling house) is 10 metres as measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The proposed building has a maximum overall and wall height of 10.4 metres as measured from ground level to the top of the parapet. The 10.0m wall height standard applying under Clause 33(4) above is therefore exceeded.

 

The applicant has lodged an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1)-Development Standards to the proposal’s departure from the maximum wall height standard. In the objection the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

-           The excess is 0.4 metres and is confined to a minor portion of the site. It is considered that at least 98% of the wall height is below the height limit of 10 metres by up to 0.6 metres. The excess does not contribute or create a disorderly use of the land.

 

-           The proposed height limit (overall and wall) is below that of other residential flat buildings along the same side of Grosvenor Street and below those immediately to the rear along Addison Street.

 

-           The additional height does not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding neighbours in regard to overshadowing, loss of outlook or view and loss of privacy.

 

-           The proposed design is considered meritorious and will form an improvement to the streetscape along both sides of Grosvenor Street. The proposed setbacks and landscaping will result in the built form being an attractive addition to the streetscape.  

 

Assessment:

 

The purpose of the building height standards as stated in the LEP are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas..

 

Due to the proposed length and reduced side and rear boundary setbacks of the building especially towards its rear, the excessive wall height of the proposed building is considered to cause unnecessary and unjustifiable additional amenity impacts to adjoining properties in terms of increased overshadowing and visual bulk and scale. It is therefore considered that the wall height of the proposed building should be required to comply with the maximum 10.0 metre requirement. The applicant has indicated that the height of the building can be readily reduced to comply.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is not considered to be well founded.

 

9.2       Car parking and Traffic

 

Under Council’s DCP-Parking, 18 car parking spaces comprising 14 residential and 4 visitor spaces are required for the proposed development. 14 spaces are proposed, comprising 13 residential and 1 visitor car space within a basement level car park. A Traffic and Parking Report prepared by Traffix –Traffic and Transport Planners has been submitted in support of the proposal.

 

As the number of car parking spaces provided in the development does not comply with the requirements of DCP-Parking, a copy of the application and accompanying traffic/parking report and a subsequent supplementary traffic/parking report lodged on 11 January 2001 was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for assessment and comments. The Traffic Engineer’s assessment and advice is provided under Section 6.4 of the report.

 

In the applicant’s Traffic and Parking Assessment report, it is argued that as the size of the proposed one bedrooms units are 42sq.m and therefore only slightly exceed the maximum 40sq.m requirement for a rate of 1 residential car space per 2 dwellings to apply under the DCP, the proposed provision of 14 car spaces represents a reasonable compromise between the 18 spaces required under strict application of the DCP and the 11 spaces which would be required at the lower rate applicable to dwellings under 40sq m in area. Notwithstanding this argument, it is contended that there is sufficient available on-street parking capacity in the vicinity of the site to accommodate the proposed deficiency of 4 spaces from the DCP. The applicant’s report also contends that the site should enjoy a parking credit in lieu of the deficiency in on-site parking by 3 spaces under the DCP currently generated by the two dwellings on the site.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer does not support the arguments and findings of the applicant’s report and has concluded on the basis of his assessment that the proposed development should not be supported on traffic and parking grounds.

 

9.3       Amenity Impacts

 

9.3.1    Visual Bulk and Scale

 

The proposed length, height and reduced side and rear boundary setbacks of the building especially towards its rear, is considered to have an unreasonable adverse amenity impact upon adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale. The limited height of the proposed plantings (up to 3.0m  only) within the proposed planter boxes along the side boundaries of the site is not considered to provide sufficient visual screening and softening of the proposed building from the adjoining eastern and western properties.

 

9.3.2    Overshadowing and Loss of Light

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the proposal would comply with the requirements of the DCP-Multi Unit Housing in relation to solar access to adjoining properties. Although the shadow diagrams do not show the shadowing effects of the adjoining flat buildings to the rear fronting Addison Street, the author’s own assessment would indicate that the north facing rear yard areas of the adjoining eastern and western properties would still receive more than 3 hours of sunlight to at least 50 % of their rear yard areas during the late morning to early afternoon period in mid-winter. Notwithstanding this, the proposed building extends significantly beyond the rear setback of the adjoining western dwelling at No.6 Grosvenor Street causing unnecessary additional overshadowing to the rear yards and windows of No.6 Grosvenor Street in the morning and the rear-most west facing windows of the residential flat building at No.12 Grosvenor Street in the afternoon.

 

The existing single storey dwelling on the site at No.8 Grosvenor Street is generally set back 900mm (approximately1200mm towards the rear) from the western side boundary with No.6 Grosvenor Street). Due to the increased setbacks of the proposed building from the western side boundary, daylight access to the adjacent east-facing windows of No.6 Grosvenor Street would generally be improved by the proposed building.

 

The east-facing living area windows of No.6 Grosvenor Street would not currently receive 3 hours of sunlight due to their orientation relative to true north. The rear projection of the proposed building beyond the rear of the dwelling at No.6 Grosvenor Street will result in additional loss of morning sunlight to the rear, east-facing and north-facing windows of that dwelling. Increasing the rear setback of the proposed building would reduce the morning shadow impact on those windows.

 

9.3.3    Overlooking/Loss of Privacy

 

Window openings to the main living areas of the units contained within the proposed building are generally orientated to the front and rear of the building with openings to bedrooms and bathrooms orientated to the side boundaries and the proposed bathroom windows openings having 1.6m sill heights. Planter boxes with plantings to 1.5m in height are proposed to the sides of the proposed first and second floor balconies at the front and rear of the building to restrict the overlooking of adjoining properties. The existing 7m high tree within the rear yard of No.6 Grosvenor Street adjacent to that property’s eastern boundary will also provide some visual screening of the rear balconies of the development from that property.

 

The location of the pedestrian walkway along the western side boundary of the proposed building and the proximity of the proposed building to that boundary creates the potential for aural privacy impacts to the adjacent rooms of the semi-detached dwelling at No.6 Grosvenor Street. However, due to the orientation of the living areas of the proposed units to the front and rear of the proposed building, no significant adverse impact is envisaged. 

 

The performance requirements of the DCP in regard to visual and aural privacy will be satisfactorily met.

 

9.3.4    Views

 

No significant existing views would be affected by the proposed development. The existing significant Gum tree within the rear yard area of No.10 Grosvenor Street, however, provides significant visual amenity to the surrounding properties and should be retained. The rear yard areas of the site and adjoining pair of semi detached dwellings at Nos.4 and 6 Grosvenor Street also provide significant visual amenity as a shared green space between adjoining and nearby buildings.

 

9.4.1    Building Design, Materials and Appearance

 

The proposed building is of a contemporary design. The building is to be predominantly rendered with banded brickwork detailing to the side elevations, a parapet roof form, and solid rendered balustrading and masonry panel surrounds to the proposed front and rear balconies.

 

The applicant advises that the Type 6-1960s-1980s Walk-up Flats building type profile identified under Part 2 of the DCP-Multi Unit Housing-Vision for Randwick-Desired Future Character was used in the design of the proposed development.

 

Although there are some residential flat buildings on the northern side of Grosvenor Street (i.e. 4 in all), the predominant type of development in the street consists of single storey dwelling houses and two semi detached dwellings, all of a Federation character. This would suggest that infill development on the site should be designed to conform to a Type 3-Federation or Californian Bungalows streetscape profile in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

 

Independent heritage advice sought from City Plan Heritage (copy attached) confirms that Grosvenor Street is divided between a Type 2-Single Level Federation Terraces or Semis and a Type 3- Federation or Californian Bungalows streetscape. The City Plan report confirms that 17 of the 23 buildings in Grosvenor Street are of a Federation character.

 

Both the Type 2 and Type 3 streetscape profiles of the DCP specify that design features and elements such as gable or pitched roof forms (with gable ends being panelled and recessed) and predominantly face brick should be used in the design of infill development. These building type characteristics required by the DCP are not evident in the proposal.

 

The architectural character and design of the proposed development is not considered to respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing Federation character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street.

 

9.5     Resident Submissions

 

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

 

-       Size of driveway opening

 

Comment:

 

The 3.3m height of the proposed driveway opening is considered excessive and could be reduced by a condition of development consent.

 

-       Potential damage to building, noise, dust and general inconvenience during construction

 

Comment:

 

These concerns can be satisfactorily addressed through conditions of consent.

 

-       Overdevelopment of the site

 

Comment:

 

The proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

 

-   Increased noise

 

Comment:

 

An increase in density on the site as envisaged under the 2C zoning generates the potential for increased noise from residents and visitors and their vehicles. Due to the proposed design, layout of units, the positioning of window openings and balconies and the driveway entry to the basement car parking, no significant adverse noise impacts are likely to arise from the proposal.

 

-     Effect of proposed excavation for basement car park on the structural integrity of the dwelling/dilapidation report requested

 

Comment:

 

Dilapidation reports for neighbouring properties would be required to be provided at construction certificate stage by condition of consent.

 

-       Lack of dwelling mix

 

Comment:

 

The one-bedroom dwellings proposed would be attractive to singles, couples and the elderly. No objection is raised to the proposed development in this regard.

 

-     Impact on living areas of No.6 Grosvenor street due to lighting to the pedestrian entry and walkway at night

 

Comment:

 

Non-intrusive lighting to the pedestrian entry and walkway areas of the development would be required by condition of development consent.

 

-     Impact of smoke from No.6’s chimney on nearby units of the proposed building

 

Comment:

 

This is not considered to present a major issue for concern. Window openings in the western elevation of the dwelling opposite No. 6 are generally limited in size.

 

-     No provision for bicycle parking indicated in the plans

 

Comment:

     

The amended plans included the provision of a bicycle storeroom adjacent to the driveway entry to the basement car park.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development does not comply with numerous qualitative and quantitative standards of Randwick LEP 1998, the Multi Unit Housing DCP and Car Parking DCP, and the SEPP 1 objections in relation to floor space ratio, soft landscaping provision and wall height are not considered to be well founded. The proposed development is also inconsistent with a key objective of the 2C zone.

 

A development of a lesser FSR of (or close to) 0.65:1 would allow most, if not all, of the issues/ concerns raised with the proposal to be satisfactorily addressed. Reducing the length of the building could allow the existing significant gum tree located within the rear yard area of No.10 Grosvenor Street to be retained, impacts on neighbouring properties such as visual bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy to be significantly reduced, greater setbacks to be achieved from side and rear boundaries, significantly greater provision for soft/deep-soil landscaping especially on the rear of the site, compliance with the car parking standards of DCP-Parking, and a building design which responds more appropriately to the predominant architectural style and character of existing development in the street.  

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

In light of the findings and recommendations of the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study by Godden Mackay Logan, June 2001 and the independent heritage advice obtained from City Plan Heritage, is also recommended that Council formally recognise the Federation heritage qualities and character of Grosvenor Street so that all developments respect its established character and amenity value. Further, it is recommended that Council seek a separate later report on the identification of the Grosvenor Street Area as a heritage conservation area and that the 2C zoning applying to the northern side of Grosvenor Street be reviewed in the report due to its inconsistency with a Conservation Area listing.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 933/2001 for Demolition of the two existing dwelling houses and the construction of a three storey (4 level) multi unit housing development comprising 14 x one bedroom dwellings with associated basement car parking  at 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposal does not comply with the Aims of Clauses 2 (e) and (g) and the Objectives of Clause 12(1) (c) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.     

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the stated purposes of Clauses 31, 32 and 33 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in relation to provision for soft permeable landscaping, floor space ratio and wall height, and the State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objections in relation to the proposal’s departures from Clauses 31(3), 32(1) and (2), and 33(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in particular, are not considered to be well founded and justified.

 

3.         The proposal is inconsistent with and contrary to the Objectives and identified Requirements of the following Parts contained in the Randwick Development Control Plan-Multi Unit Housing:

 

-           Part 2.1-Vision for Randwick-Desired Future Character (Type 3 Streetscape)

-           Part 3.1- Site Planning (P1 and P2), Part 3.2- Height (P2), Part 3.3- Building Setbacks (P2 and P3), Part 3.4-Density (P1), Part 3.5- Fences (P1).

-           Part 4.1-Landscaping and Private Open Space (P2), Part 4.2- Privacy (P1).

 

-           Part 5.1-Parking (P3), Part 5.2-Driveways and Manoeuvring (P2) Part 5.3-Storage (P1).

-           Part 6.1-Heritage Conservation and/or Heritage Items (P3).

 

4.         The proposal does not comply with the Aims, Objectives, Requirements and standards of Randwick Development Control Plan-Parking and makes inadequate provision for on-site parking and there is insufficient available on-street parking capacity to accommodate the parking demand of the development.

 

5.         The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

 

6.         The proposal would have an adverse impact upon local residential amenity in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, and lack of adequate provision for on-site parking.

 

7.         The proposal would result in the loss of the existing significant gum tree located within the existing rear yard area of No.10 Grosvenor Street, which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and should be retained due to its current and future amenity and environmental values.

 

8.         The architectural character and design of the proposed development does not respect, enhance and compliment the dominant existing character and the desired future character of development in Grosvenor Street.

 

9.         The proposal does not respond appropriately to its surrounding context and setting.

 

10.       The proposed development would create an undesirable precedent for future development in Grosvenor Street.

 

11.       The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

12.       The proposal does not adequately address issues/concerns raised in resident submissions.

 

B.         That In light of the findings and recommendations of the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study by Godden Mackay Logan, June 2001 and the independent heritage advice obtained from City Plan Heritage, Council formally recognise the Federation heritage qualities and character of Grosvenor Street so that all developments respect its established character and amenity value. Further, that Council seek a separate later report on the identification of the Grosvenor Street Area as a heritage conservation area and that the 2C zoning applying to the northern side of Grosvenor Street be reviewed in the report due to its inconsistency with a Conservation Area listing.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

-           A4 configurations

-           Copy of Independent Heritage Assessment Report prepared by City Plan Services dated January 2002 UNDER SEPARATE COVER

-           Copy of report prepared by Council's Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinators regarding the existing Gum Tree located within the rear yard area of No.10 Grosvenor Street.     

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 
















 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 18/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

44-48 Cowper Street, RANDWICK   

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1111/2001

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. D/1111/2001 to demolish the existing dwellings and erect a multi-unit housing development of 3 storeys above basement parking levels, comprising 31 dwelling units and 45 car parking spaces for Councils consideration and determination. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 2 April 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PAULA MORETTI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR PLANNER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

2 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1111/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 To demolish the existing dwellings and erect a multi-unit housing development of 3 storeys above basement parking levels, comprising 31 dwelling units and 45 car parking spaces.

PROPERTY:

 44-48 Cowper Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Arttech Designs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the estimated cost of development is $3million.

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling houses and construct a 3 storey multi-unit housing development comprising 31 dwelling units, with basement parking.

 

The main issues associated with the proposal are the scale and bulk of the proposed building, its compatibility with the streetscape, and its likely impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. Other issues relate to traffic and parking, use of the right-of-way, and loss of heritage values and low cost accommodation associated with the existing dwellings.

 

The proposed building is of a scale and density commensurate with the site’s Residential 2C zoning. It is compatible with the streetscape and will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining development. Its design has regard to maintenance of solar access and privacy for adjoining properties and for future residents on the site. The proposal provides adequate parking and the increase in traffic can be accommodated by the surrounding road network. Neither of the existing dwellings has heritage listing and there is no evidence of previous use as a licensed boarding house.

 

The application is recommended for approval on the basis of a deferred commencement.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling houses and construct a multi-unit housing development comprising 31 dwellings (22 x 1 bedroom, 9 x 2 bedroom).

 

The proposed building is three storeys above two basement levels of car parking.   Above the basement, the residential levels are split into two main buildings running east west across the site, with a ground level common open space area in between. 

 

The 31 dwellings are arranged with 11 located on each of the first two levels and 9 on the third uppermost level.  Each level generally matches the footprint of the level below, with the exception of the upper level of the building adjacent to Cowper Street which has two dwellings missing in the middle, breaking the form of the upper level into two end  sections with a large gap between.

 

The buildings are of a fairly conventional design featuring face brick walls and pitched, tiled roofs, with articulation in the wall planes, balconies, and pergolas. The balconies are partly recessed and most are located on the north and east sides of the buildings. 

 

The total floor area of the proposed buildings is 1862.5sqm.  The maximum overall height is 11.67m above ground and the external walls are up to 9.5m above ground.

 

The building setbacks are varied owing to the articulation of the building walls and balconies. The minimum setbacks to the outer walls of the building and to the balconies are set out below.

 

North front boundary (to Cowper St) –     8.3m walls, 5.8m balconies (average 7.2m)

East side boundary (to Church St) –          3.3m walls, 2.2m balconies (average 3m)

West side boundary (to 42 Cowper St) –  5m walls, 4.4 balconies (average 5.3m)

South rear boundary (to 10 Church St) –  6m walls (average 7.5m)

 

Private courtyards to ground level dwellings occupy most of the space between the proposed buildings and the site’s west and south boundaries where it adjoins other properties.  The remaining space between the two buildings and along the site’s north and east boundaries to Cowper St and Church St will be common open space.

 

Pedestrian access to the site is to be via pathways off Church St. Vehicular access to the basement is via a driveway off Cowper St, adjacent to the site’s west boundary.

 

Most of the existing trees on the site are to be retained, including a number of trees along the site’s rear (south) boundary. Proposed landscaping includes deep planted buffers to the rear (south) and side (east and west) boundaries. 

 

The proposal incorporates some revisions made since the application was first lodged to address matters raised by Council and the public submissions. The revisions are:

 

deletion of a dwelling at the centre of the upper level of the northern building, and a series of smaller changes to reduce the total floor space by 160sqm;

redesign of the building at the corner of Cowper St and Church St to incorporate windows and balconies in a tower style structure;

balconies recessed further, pergolas added over upper level balconies/terraces and balustrading altered to reduce the solid section and replace with open railings;

external colour scheme altered to incorporate a darker, less obtrusive colour on the balustrades;

orientation of balconies in south-west corner adjusted and vertical louvres added to reduce overlooking of property to west;

two disabled car parking spaces included in basement car park and a lift provided for access to the disabled spaces; and

1.8m high brushwood fence added to the boundary of the right-of-way.

 

The revisions were intended to reduce the bulk and scale of the proposed buildings, improve the presentation of the corner of the building to Cowper and Church Sts, reduce privacy impacts on the adjoining property to the west, provide for disabled access, and physically separate the development from the right-of-way.

 

The revisions were shown on amended plans received on 19 March 20002, and were re-notified and advertised.

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located at the corner of Cowper Street and Church Street in Randwick.

 

The site comprises three lots; two regular residential lots fronting Cowper Street, and a long thin lot running behind the first two properties off Church Street, over which a right-of-way exits to provide for access to an apartment building west of the site. 

 

The right-of-way lot is 3.66m wide and 81.11m long and it extends beyond the main site (the two regular lots) by a distance of about 38.6m. The total area of the three lots is 2046.3sqm.  The right-of-way is 296.8sqm and of that about 141.2m is in the handle that extends beyond the main site.

 

The frontages of the site are 42.52m to Cowper Street and 44.81m to Church Street (including the right-of-way).

 

Each of the two regular lots is developed with a single storey detached house.  The  larger of the two (44-46 Cowper St) has been internally converted into flats, although there is no record of approval being obtained for such use. There is no building development on the right-of-way lot.  It is fenced on both sides (iron sheet fence on north side and 1.5-2m high retaining wall on south side) and partly asphalt surfaced.

 

The ground levels of the site are elevated above the adjoining level in Cowper Street by about 1m at the eastern end (Church St) and by about 2m at the western end. A driveway is excavated in off Cowper Street at the western end providing access to parking behind the existing house (44-46 Cowper St). There are retaining walls along the site’s street frontages. The site rises to its highest point in the south-east corner, at the entry to the right-of-way, where it is level with the adjacent level in Cowper St.

 

Existing vegetation includes two trees in the north-east corner adjacent to Cowper Street and a number of trees along the north side of the right of way.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly residential with a mix of older detached and semi-detached houses, and 3-4 storey multi-unit buildings developed in the 1960-70s.

 

Development immediately surrounding the site includes:

 

·          North (on the opposite side of Cowper St) – single storey houses;

·          South (on the other side of the right-of-way) – multi-unit buildings 3 storeys above ground level parking, known as ‘Paradise Gardens’;

·          East (on the opposite side of Church St) – multi-unit building 3 storeys above ground level parking; and

·          West (adjoining sites on Cowper St) – single storey semi-detached houses.

 

The two houses on the site are part of a group of about nine old detached/semi-detached houses along both sides of Cowper Street, west of the intersection with Church Street. Multi-unit buildings dominate the area beyond this group of houses in all directions.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with Council officers in August 2000. Preliminary plans were reviewed which showed a single basement level occupying most of the site and a ‘U-shaped’ building around a central courtyard with a three storey façade along the entire length of the façade to Cowper Street.  The main issues raised were:

 

·              the LEP maximum floor space ratio should not be exceeded, unless supported by a valid SEPP1 objection;

·              the useable common open space areas appear to be scarce;

·              given the wide frontage to Cowper Street, a ‘two-building’ design is preferable as it is less bulky;

·              excessively protruding balconies and terraces are not favoured;

·              the required rear setback under Council’s DCP has not been achieved, and the status of the right-of-way needs to be clarified;

·              the basement podium should be contained below ground level and any protrusion above ground level will be the point at which setback are measured.

 

The proposal presented at pre-lodgement was considered to be somewhat excessive as assessed against the Council’s planning controls and as seen by its conspicuous prominence in the streetscape.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The application was advertised and notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan. As it was initially advertised over the Christmas break, the period for submissions was extended to four weeks. A preliminary assessment of the application identified that the right-of-way which forms part of the site may not have been clearly evident in the advertisement/notices. The application was re-advertised. Then once amended plans were formally lodged, the proposal was advertised again.

 

5.1  Objections

 

Initially, 64 submissions were received. On re-advertising with the correct site description a further 14 submissions were received, although only 3 of these were from people who had not already made a submission the first time. When the amended plans were advertised, 89 submissions were received, some of which were from people who had not already made a submission the first two times and include several comprehensive submissions. An on-site meeting was also held on 8 February 2002 with some of the local residents to discuss their concerns.

 

The main concerns raised in the submissions and at the meeting are:

 

·          loss of two grand, historic houses (one house was heritage listed until 1998);

·          loss of low cost housing provided by one of the existing houses which has been used as a boarding house;

·          further proliferation of unit developments leading to a loss of character and amenity in the area and contrary to the zoning objectives which seek a variety of housing types;

·          increase in population density and overcrowding in the area;

·          proposal exceeds floor space ratio limits and SEPP1 objection is unconvincing, particularly references to existing unit developments nearby which are irrelevant because they were developed in the 1960s and contain much larger unit sizes and to the inclusion of any part of the right of way in the site area;

·          landscaped area does not meet the LEP definition outlined in the Randwick LEP and doubtful it meets LEP controls of that instrument. Right of way cannot be included as landscaped area.

·          proposed building height is excessive as, due to the elevation of the site’s ground levels, the building will be equivalent to a four storey height above Cowper St;

·          Both the east and south setback are non-compliant. Right of way should not be used to achieve compliance.

·          the proposed building will be dominating and detract from the streetscape;

·          proposed building is ugly and out of keeping with the heritage/federation styles;

·          Vehicular access off Cowper Street is hazardous, exacerbation of traffic problems in Cowper St which already carries high traffic volumes, becomes congested at peak hour, has high incidence of accidents at the intersection with Church St, and is dangerous for pedestrians crossing the road;

·          further reduction in availability of on-street parking which is already inadequate;

·          increase in traffic will increase noise and pollution;

·          adverse impacts on the adjoining residential development to the south (Paradise Gardens) including overshadowing of units and clothes drying areas, overlooking and privacy impacts, and loss of views north to Bondi Junction and the city;

·          obstruction to use of the right-of-way during construction and from encroachment by the courtyards and open space areas of the proposed development;

·          the applicant’s statement that the right-of-way is no longer used is incorrect as it is regularly used by pedestrians and garden maintenance vehicles; and

·          the proposal fails to provide for security or disabled access.

·          the Statement of Environmental Effects contains many errors and inconsistencies.

·          no opportunity for community recreation facilities in the rear setback area as shown as private courtyards.

·          proposal will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

 

            The submission from the owners of the adjoining property to the west (42 Cowper Street) indicated general support for the proposal, but queried the following aspects:

 

·          safety concerns for traffic and pedestrians in Cowper Street and whether the vehicular entry/exit should alternatively be located in Church Street;

·          impacts from headlights of cars exiting the site on houses opposite;

·          absence of security gates to the basement carpark;

·          arrangements for garbage collection, a concern as there is not enough room in Cowper Street;

·          replacement of the common side boundary wall;

·          assurances about property damage during demolition and excavation;

·          potential privacy impacts from west facing windows and balconies;

·          architectural style should be in keeping with Federation style of housing nearby;

·          maintenance of the right-of-way clear of bins and dumped rubbish.

 

The concerns raised in the submissions are addressed in the discussion in section 8.0.

 

5.2       Support

 

            No letters of support were received.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

            The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has reviewed the proposal and supplied conditions to be imposed should the application be approved.

 

6.2       Building Certification 

 

The Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the proposal and supplied standard conditions to be imposed should the application be approved.

 

6.3       Strategic Planning (Heritage Planner)

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that the existing houses are not listed as heritage items under the current Local Environmental Plan, nor were they listed under the 1993 Plan, nor are they State Heritage Act listed. The Heritage Study carried out for Council in 1989 gave both houses an ‘R’ classification which signifies ‘ruined’ by extensions and alterations. At ratings of A, B, C or R in order of value for retention, only buildings classified A were listed as heritage items in the subsequent Plan.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4000sqm, a Master Plan is not required.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

-           Development Control Plan – Parking

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Multi-unit Housing is permitted subject to Council consent.

 

Development standards applicable in the 2C zone are:

 

Landscaped Area

Minimum 50% of total site area (of which landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50%)

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum 0.9:1

 

Building Heights

Maximum height overall – 12m

Maximum height of external wall – 10m

 

The gross floor area of the proposed development is 1862.5sqm.

 

The applicant contends that the development standards should be measured against the total site area including the two regular house lots and all of the right-of-way.  The right-of-way lot extends some 38.5m beyond the main area of land to which the development proposal relates.  It is not associated with any building or landscape works or access arrangements for the proposed development, and will remain fenced off from the development. Notwithstanding that the right-of-way can not be physically developed in any way that might obstruct its use as a right-of-way, the applicant contends that the owner is entitled to development benefit from the right-of-way under its Residential 2C zoning. The applicant has cited case law which supports the argument that the whole of the area of the right-of-way should be counted as part of the total site area.  Assessed on this basis, with a total site area of 2046.3sqm, the proposal would achieve a floor space ratio of  0.91:1.

 

The above contention is supported by the fact that the whole of the strip of land subject of the right of way is zoned to permit multi unit housing and the Randwick LEP does not differentiate that part of the site from the remainder of the site. In any event, that part of the right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of the two house lots has a physical relationship to the development and will form part of the visible space around it, it is reasonable to include that part of the right-of-way as site area for the purpose of calculating floorspace ratio, building setback, and landscaped area requirements. Assessed on this basis, with a total site area of 1905.3, the proposal would achieve a floor space ratio of 0.977:1.

 

The floor space calculations, based on including all of the right-of-way or only that part immediately adjacent to the main lots as site area, are set out in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 – FSR Calculations

 

 

FSR based on Whole of ROW as site area

(applicant’s approach)

FSR based on Part of ROW as site area

(recommended approach)

 

Site Area

 

Maximum FSR under LEP

 

Proposed

 

Excess Over Maximum

 

2046.3sqm

 

1841.67sqm  (0.9:1)

 

 

1862.5sqm (0.91:1)

 

20.89sqm

 

 

1905.3sqm

 

1714.77sqm  (0.9:1)

 

 

1862.5sqm (0.977:1)

 

147.73sqm

 

 

The proposed building includes storage areas within the basement levels which are reasonable to allow as additional floor space over and above the figures provided above as the areas are below ground and do not add to the visible bulk and scale of the building or its impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

In respect of landscaped area, as driveways are not counted as landscaped area under the LEP definition and the right-of-way functions as a driveway, no part of the right-of way should be counted as landscaped area.  Although the required landscaped area should still be based on the site area including only that part of the right-of-way adjacent to the two main lots.  Calculated on a site area of 1905.3, the required landscaped area and the amount proposed is:

 

                                                     Required                     Proposed

 

Landscaped Area Minimum -         952.65sqm (50%)        1051sqm (55.2%)

   and clear of podium -                  476sqm (25%)             549.7sqm (29%)

                            

The proposed development complies with the landscaped area requirements, but exceeds the floor space ratio by 147.73sqm.  A SEPP1 objection has been submitted which argues that compliance with the LEP standard in this instance would be unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·              the proposed building is of a height, size, bulk and external appearance that is in keeping with the multi-unit housing in the locality and is not dissimilar to the bulk and scale of other multi-unit buildings in the immediate locality;

·              the proposed building is designed to relate to the scale and desired future character of the locality and to maintain the existing pattern of street setbacks;

·              the proposal features a split-level built form that responds to the slope of the site, and the appearance of the building is to be further softened through the use of landscaping that exceeds the minimum requirements under the planning controls;

·              the proposed development has been sited to protect, as far as practicable, the privacy and solar access of adjoining buildings; and

·              the shadow of the proposed building will fall mainly on the subject site and Church Street, and shadow impacts on adjacent properties are minor.

 

The main grounds raised in the SEPP1 objection are valid.  The purpose of the floor space limit is to reduce the potential for impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.  The proposed building is not out of scale with the streetscape, particularly given the revisions which reduce the length of the third storey façade and the bulk of the roof adjacent to Cowper Street, and which reduce the visual impact of the balconies by recessing them and altering the balustrade detailing.  The  proposed building will not result in any significant privacy or shadow impacts on adjoining properties (refer to discussion of impacts in section 8.0 of this report).  The floor space has been reduced by 160sqm from the proposal as original applied for, and the 147.73sqm of excess floor space that exists under the amended proposal does not result in non-compliance with other standards such as building height and boundary setbacks.  The proposed building is within the height limits and is setback further from the street frontages than the existing houses on the site.  Accordingly, the proposed variation to the LEP floor space limit is not considered to be unreasonable.

 

The proposed building complies with the LEP height limits.  Only the highest peak of the pitched roof is at the maximum height of 12m, while the remainder of the roof is up to 3m below the maximum height and 5m below where the building is 2 storeys next to Cowper St. The building is 0.5-2m below the maximum external wall heights. While the height of the building relative to the street is increased by the elevated ground levels of the site, the LEP measures height against the ground levels of the site, not the adjacent streets.  The basement podium has been designed to be mostly below the ground levels of site, except in the north-east corner due to the slope. As the proposed building is well within the applicable height limits, its bulk and scale are not beyond what would reasonably be expected having regard to the LEP controls.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

The proposed development is generally consistent with the performance requirements of the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing.  Relevant aspects of compliance are outlined in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions)

site planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

S2 Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

 

P complies

 

 

 

P complies; site rectangular in shape with frontages of 42.52m to Cowper St and 44.81m to Church St.

 

building height

P1 Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties.

 

P2 Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

 

P complies; the proposed building complies with height limits under the LEP, responds to the topography, dimensions and orientation of the site and surrounding properties, and incorporates a number of features which help to reduce its apparent bulk, including:

             separation into two buildings above ground

             a two-storey section in the middle of the facade to Cowper St, emphasised by the alternating colour scheme

             a ‘tower’ structure at the street corner which tends to reduce the perceived bulk of the building as it extends away from the corner

             articulation in the walls

             partly recessed balconies and partly open balcony balustrades

             darker colour scheme for the balustrades and

             generally subdued tones in the external colour scheme.

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1            The front setback consistent with streetscape /  adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P complies; the setback from the street frontages is greater than that of the existing houses on the site, and is generally consistent with that of adjoining development; although the corner balcony ‘tower’ is closer to the frontages than other buildings nearby, it is only a small part of the façade, it relates more to the street intersection than to buildings nearby, and it tends to reduce the perceived bulk of the building as it extends away from the corner towards adjoining properties;

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Side setbacks to ensure:

·              Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·              Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

·              Landscaping and private open space provided.

·              Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

P complies; minimum setback 4.5m (to balconies) and average 5.3m to west side boundary.

 

 

 

P complies; maximum length of unarticulated wall 4m approx.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setbacks

P3            Ensure that:

·              solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

·              Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·              Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·              Building built across site.

 

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres.

rP building setback complies with the minimum setback, but is slightly under the average setback (by 0.5m); this is a minor non-compliance which is acceptable given that the retention of existing trees and additional tree planting provides a good landscape buffer to the rear boundary, balconies and living room windows are oriented away from the boundary to avoid privacy impacts, and shadow impacts will only affect the ground level carpark of the building on the adjoining property;

 

P complies; maximum length of unarticulated wall 7.4m

 

 

General

P4            Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties.

 

 

S4  No device may encroach  more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

P complies; small eaves provided and pergola structures over balconies and terraces will be of minor visual impact.

DENSITY

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms and minimises impact on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape.

 

 

P complies; refer to discussions on building bulk and floor space ratio

FENCES

P1           

·              Front fences consistent  with  streetscape.

·              Entrances highlighted.

·              Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1

Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

 

P complies; solid front fence no higher than 1.2m except where necessary for retaining wall, and fencing above required to be at least 75% open.

LANDSCAPEAND OPEN SPACE

Landscaped Areas

P1            Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

P2 Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

P complies; a number of areas of common open space have minimum dimensions of 2m are provided at ground level, with the perimeter areas used for landscape buffering, and the central courtyard provided for recreational use incorporating paving, seating, and shade trees. Although private courtyards are provided for a number of ground floor dwellings, a sizable area of common open space is provided between the buildings and a condition has been included to ensure that the part of the site between the buildings and both Cowper and Church Street alignments is communal open space.

 

 

Private Open Space

P3            Provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

P4            Is located in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

 

P complies

 

 

P complies

 

Flats and apartments

P6 Dwellings have direct access to courtyard, balcony,  deck or roof garden.

 

S6    Minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

 

P complies; private open space in the form of courtyards, balconies and/or roof terraces is provided for each dwelling unit ranging from     8-56sqm per unit, with minimum dimensions of 2m at least in part, and an average of 20sqm per unit.

 

PRIVACY

Visual Privacy

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acoustic Privacy

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise. Quiet areas separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation . Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S4 Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

 

P complies; potential overlooking of adjoining properties is limited by the arrangement of units with balconies & living room windows on the north & east sides wherever possible; there are no living room windows in the south wall facing Paradise Gardens and the one balcony located along that wall will have a privacy screen to prevent overlooking to the south; balconies located along the west wall are generally well recessed and positioned opposite the roof of the adjoining dwelling, and those positioned towards the rear will be required to have privacy louvres to prevent direct overlooking of the adjoining back yard; the setbacks and landscape buffers along the south and west boundaries of the site will also help to reduce potential visual and privacy impacts on adjoining properties;

 

P complies

 

 

 

 

 

P standard requirement

VIEW SHARING

 

.4.1.1.1      P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P complies; the proposed building complies with the height limits and in parts is well below those limits, and its roof is just below the eye level of a person standing on the upper level of balconies in Paradise Garden to the south, which allows for a reasonable sharing of views.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

P1.2-3 Solar access to living areas and at least 50% of principal landscaped areas of neighbouring properties is not reduced to less than 3hrs/day.

 

 

P complies; majority of living room windows and balconies/terraces are oriented to north to maximise solar access

 

P complies

 

P complies; shadow impacts on adjoining properties are moderate and will not reduce solar access to less than 3hrs per day (refer s.9)

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

· Living areas are orientated to the north.

· Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

S4 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star NatHERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

 

 

P complies each unit is certified to achieve an energy efficient Nathers rating of at least 3.5 stars, with some achieving up to 5 stars.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1 Design allows surveillance.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

 

P complies; windows and balconies overlook street and entries, front fence is an open design above ground to allow surveillance, and security gate will be provided at entry to basement car park.

.4.1.2        PARKING

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P2 Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

 

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

 

P complies; all parking is provided in basement level and proposed driveway utilises existing driveway.

 

P complies; two disabled parking spaces provided.

 

 

 

P complies; lockable storage area provided in basement for bicycles.

 

 

P complies; 41 car spaces required under DCP, 45 car spaces provided.

DRIVE-WAYS AND TURNING

AREAS

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

 

 

 

S2  Vehicles enter with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays

 

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 for ramps over 20m.

 

P complies

 

 

P complies

 

 

 

 

P complies

 

 

P complies; proposed driveway is 5m wide, and although it is adjacent to a side boundary, it utilises an existing driveway in that location and provides maximum separation from the intersection of Cowper and Church Sts to reduce traffic impacts.

 

P complies

 

P complies

STORAGE

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1 10sqm of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages .

 

P complies; secure storage areas for each unit provided in basement and most of the single bedroom units also include a study room which can be used for storage. 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

P1 Design must provide  access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

The requirements of AS1428.1 and AS 4299 are  to be considered.

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

Pcomplies; lift provided for disabled access from basement car park to ground level of development and ramp provided for disabled access from Church St to common areas.

 

P complies; of the proposed 31 dwelling units, at least two a ground level will be accessible via flat grades or ramps from the basement and from the footpath in Church St.

 

 

 

 

P complies; two disables parking spaces are provided in the basement.

 

 

P complies; lift provided.

 

b.    Development Control Plan – Parking

 

For multi-unit housing, the DCP requires parking provision at rate of:

 

Resident Car Parking

1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling; 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling

 

Visitor Car Parking

1 space per 4 dwellings of part thereof

 

Resident Bicycle Parking

1 space per 3 units

 

For the proposed development the required parking is 41 car spaces (33 for residents and 8 for visitors) and 10 bicycle spaces. The proposal provides a total of 45 parking spaces, including 2 disabled spaces and car wash bay.  This is 4 more than the DCP requires. Ample space is provided for bicycle and ancillary storage.  Although a few of the parking spaces appear to have dimensions slightly under the standard, this can be addressed through conditions of consent.

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Compliance with Planning Instruments

 

As discussed in Section 7 of this report, the proposal complies with most of the relevant provisions of Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. In relation to floor space (non-compliance with the LEP standard), the applicant has demonstrated that relaxation of the development standard is not inconsistent with Council’s objectives and will not result in significant impacts.

 

9.2       Environmental Impact

 

The main issues with respect to the potential impacts of the proposed development are discussed in turn below.

 

Heritage Values

 

Concerns were raised in the submissions that the existing houses have heritage value and should not be demolished.  Some submissions suggested that one of the houses (the larger of the two at 44-46 Cowper Street) was heritage listed until 1998. 

 

            Council’s Heritage Planner advises neither of the houses is or has previously been heritage listed under Council’s LEP or the State Heritage Act.  The Heritage Study carried out for Council in 1989 gave both houses an ‘R’ classification which signifies ‘ruined’ by extensions and alterations. At ratings of A, B, C or R in order of value for retention, only buildings classified A were listed as heritage items.

 

It is accepted that the existing houses are two of a limited number of old houses that remain in the locality and are considered by many members of the community to be grand and beautiful reminders of the area’s heritage.  However, as there is no formal recognition of their heritage value under Council’s LEP or the Heritage Act, nor any expressed planning intention that they be retained, it would be unreasonable to require their retention, particularly given the development potential under the site’s zoning.

Low Cost Accommodation

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 10 (SEPP10) is a mechanism for the retention of low cost rental accommodation.  Under SEPP10, the Council is required to obtain the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) for certain works relating to boarding houses or residential flat buildings.

 

Concerns were raised in the submissions that the larger house at no. 44-46 Cowper St has been used as a boarding house and/or provided low rental accommodation.

 

There is no record of previous approvals being issued for use of the existing houses as anything other than dwelling houses.  The house at no. 44-46 Cowper St has been converted internally to provide multiple dwelling units.  That house has never been registered as a boarding house and as the units are self-contained it represents a residential flat building. 

 

Under SEPP10, demolition of a residential flat building does not require concurrence from DUAP.  It would be difficult for Council to enforce retention of the house as a low rental residential flat building without any record of having approved such a use. In any case, the proposed development incorporates a range of dwelling sizes, and the smaller of them might ultimately be rented at or below average rental rates.

 

Right-of-Way

 

Most of the concerns raised in the submissions about the right-of-way seem to have been triggered by the applicant’s reference to the right-of-way not being in use any more and fears that use of the right-of-way would be impeded by the development.

 

The proposed development does not involve any encroachment onto the right-of way. 

 

The development will be fenced off from the right of way, and will not utilise the right-of-way in any way other than as visible space around the development. The new fence is to be constructed along the north boundary of the right-of-way. As the existing fence is approximately 0.6m inside the boundary, the unobstructed width of the right-of-way will actually be increased to 3.66m, consistent with the width where it extends beyond the main site. 

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring that the right-of-way not be obstructed during construction or at any time in the future.

 

Driveway Location, Traffic Impact and Parking

 

The Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the proposal and advises that the average traffic generation will be in the range of 128-160 vehicle movements per day, with an expected peak flow volume of 16 vehicles per hour.  This is considered moderate and no delays should be experienced in Cowper Street or Church Street as a result of the development.  The engineer recommended that a condition be imposed to require the dedication of a 2.5m x 2.5m splay at the corner of the two streets, and a new fence be constructed behind the splay to open up sightlines for traffic negotiating the corner. 

The Council’s traffic engineer did not raise any objection to the proposed location of the driveway entry/exit to the site.  The proposal utilises an existing driveway excavated into the site at a location furthest from the intersection. To locate the driveway in Church Street, next to the right-of-way, would expose a greater number of residents to noise impacts, compromise the retention of existing trees and establishment of a good landscape buffer to Paradise Gardens, and potentially conflict with vehicles using the driveway of Paradise Gardens.

 

The proposal provides four more parking spaces than the minimum required under Council’s DCP, and will make additional on-street parking available through the removal of an existing driveway in Church Street.  It is therefore unlikely that the development will exacerbate existing parking problems.

 

Bulk, Scale and Streetscape Impact

 

As discussed earlier, the proposed building is not out of scale with the streetscape and incorporates a number of features designed to reduce its apparent bulk. 

 

Many of the concerns raised in public submissions focus on the loss of the low density character associated with the existing houses and the proliferation of multi-unit developments throughout the area increasing its density, population and sense of crowding.  The concerns are fundamentally directed at the site’s Residential 2C zoning. While the objectives of the zone refer to allowing a ‘variety of housing types’, this does not imply that medium density housing is not supported where it replaces one or more detached houses in an area where few detached houses remain.  There is no precedence in Council’s decision-making of the zone objectives being interpreted to mean that medium density housing proposals should not be approved or should be restricted to heights or floorspace ratios less than the standard for the zone when a loss of housing of the detached variety is involved. 

 

The concern in the submissions that a mix of dwelling types is not being achieved cannot be substantiated.  Data contained in the Randwick Housing Strategy 1995 indicates that of all Randwick private dwelling stock just under 51% are flats or apartments.  Separate houses constitute 35% of the total housing stock.  As such there is a great variation in dwelling type throughout the city.  Further the policy of urban consolidation has the objective of minimising the environmental consequences of peripheral urban sprawl and improving infrastructure efficiencies.  A consideration of the issues raised in this report would allow a conclusion that the increased density in the locality is generally consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2C zone under Randwick LEP 1998 and those of the NSW Government’s policy of urban consolidation.

 

Impact on Adjoining Property to South (Paradise Gardens)

 

The proposed southern building is well within the applicable height limits, and given a separation distance of about 12m to the Paradise Gardens buildings and provision of a landscaped buffer that retains most of the existing trees along the north side of the right-of-way, the development will not have an obtrusive or visually dominating appearance relative to the Paradise Gardens buildings. The building heights also achieve fair sharing of views from the upper level of Paradise Gardens.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the mid-winter shadows cast by the proposed building will only extend across the driveway and up part of the ground level (car park) wall of the Paradise Gardens buildings.  No balconies or windows in Paradise Gardens will be affected.  The shadow will only affect a minor part of the clothes drying area between the Paradise Gardens buildings for a small length of time in mid-winter.

 

There are no living room windows in the south wall facing Paradise Gardens and there is only one balcony located along that wall which will have a privacy screen to prevent overlooking to the south.

 

The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining residential property to the south (Paradise Gardens).

 

Impact on Adjoining Property to West (42 Cowper Street)

 

The adjoining property to the west does not have any significant outlook towards the site that would be adversely affected by the scale and bulk of the proposed buildings.  The shadows cast by the proposed buildings will only affect the rear part of the adjoining property until about 10.30am in mid-winter.  The privacy of the adjoining property will be protected by the addition of privacy screens to the western side of the proposed balconies that might otherwise directly overlook its backyard.

 

The owners of the adjoining property to the west have indicated support in principle for the proposed development.  Their major objection relates to the location of the entry/exit driveway which, as discussed above, is not recommended to be changed. Other more minor concerns relating to garbage collection, fencing, car parking security and construction impacts can be addressed through conditions of consent.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed multi-unit housing development is of a scale and density commensurate with the intent of the site’s 2C zoning.  It is compatible with the streetscape and will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining development. Its design has regard to preservation of solar access and privacy for residents of adjoining properties and for future residents on the site.  The proposal, as amended, satisfies the assessment criteria and may be approved subject to the conditions set out herein.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council, as the consent authority, support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to floor space ratios) on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Clause 32 and will not adversely affect the streetscape character or the amenity of the surrounding area, and that the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning be advised accordingly; and

 

B.      That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1111 of 2001 To demolish the existing dwellings and erect a multi-unit housing development of 3 storeys above basement parking levels, comprising 31 dwellings and 45 car parking spaces. at 44-48 Cowper Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Acting Director of Planning and Environment:

 

1.         Details of External Colours, Material and Textures

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) of the external surfaces of the proposed new buildings, which are compatible with the surrounding area and minimise solar glare and reflectivity

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 3 months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulation 1998, or the consent will lapse.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Acting Director of Planning and Environment, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

REFERENCED PLANS

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following amended drawings:

 

 

 

 

Plan No.

Title

Drawn By

Dated

Received

1C

Lower Basement Level

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

2C

Basement Level

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

3C

Ground Floor

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

4C

First Floor

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

5C

Second Floor

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

6C

Roof and Site

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

7C

Sections

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

8C

West and North Elevations

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

9C

South and East Elevations

Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

revision C

14.3.02

19.3.02

LSK 03

Landscape Section

Greenplan Landscape Architecture

revision A

25.3.02

28.3.02

 

the application form and any supporting information received with the application, as may be amended by the following conditions. 

 

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

 

2.         The following screening measures are to be incorporated to reduce potential privacy impacts on neighbouring properties:

 

·      fixed vertical louvred privacy screens to the western side of the balcony of unit 27 on the first floor for at least 2m along that side of the balcony from its southern side to prevent direct overlooking of the backyard of the adjoining property to the west;

·      fixed vertical louvred privacy screens to the whole of the southern side of the balcony of unit 30 on the second floor to prevent directly overlooking of the property to the south;

·      fixed vertical louvred privacy screens to the western side of the balcony of unit 30 on the second floor for at least 3m along that side of the balcony from its southern side to prevent direct overlooking of the backyard of the adjoining property to the west.

 

3.         The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. 

 

4.         A 1.8m high fence is to be erected along the north boundary of the right-of-way where it adjoins the two main lots which comprise the development site.

 

5.         No part of the development is to encroach onto the right-of-way lot or in any way obstruct the use of the right-of-way during construction or at any time in the future.

 

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

 

7.         The solid component of the front fence to both Cowper Street and Church Street is to be no higher than the existing retaining wall (or the adjacent finished ground levels of the site, whichever is lower) and any fencing above that is to comprise narrow railings at spacings which achieve the effect of being at least 75% open.

 

8.         That part of the unbuilt portion of the site with frontages to both Cowper street and Church Street is to be retained as communal open space and is not to be allocated to individual dwellings.

 

9.         A security gate is to be provided at the entrance to the basement carpark, at a distance  no less than 6m from the site’s front boundary to allow a car to be parked outside the gate, wholly within the boundaries of the site, while waiting for the gate to open.

 

10.       The basement carpark in the development, must incorporate the provision of:

 

a)   Not less than 41 car parking spaces allocated as follows:-

            i) residential 33 spaces

            ii) visitors 8 spaces

 

b)   Secure storage for 10 bicycles.

 

c)   One car wash bay, which may be used in conjunction with a visitor space.

 

d)   Two disabled spaces, which may be used in conjunction with a visitor space.

 

Details of compliance with this condition are to be shown on the relevant plans for the construction certificate.

 

Car parking areas within the development are to comply with the following:

 

·    Each right angle parking space is to have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m clear of any structures or, where adjacent to a wall or other obstruction to opening car doors, a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 3.0m;

·    All car parking spaces are to be line-marked and sealed with a hard standing, all weather material and must be maintained in a satisfactory condition at all times;

·    The entrance/exit point is to be signposted and visible from the street at all times;

·    The ramp widths are to be at least 5.5m to comply with the relevant Australian Standard;

·    The driveway of the basement carpark must be illuminated by an approved means (ie bollard lighting) from dusk to dawn.

·    The visitor spaces and loading bays are to be readily accessible at all times. 

 

Details of compliance are to be shown on the relevant plans for the Construction Certificate.

 

11.       A sign legible from the street must be permanently displayed to indicate that visitor parking is available on the site and these parking spaces must be clearly marked and remain accessible to visitors at all times.  An intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the security gate at the vehicular entrance to the carpark together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use. 

 

12.       The car parking spaces and driveways must be kept clear of goods at all times and must not be used for storage purposes.

 

The following condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

13.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)         for the provision or improvement of open space             $  42,431.42

b)         for the provision or improvement of community facilities $  18,761.48

c)         Administration fee                                                                     $       425.00

                                                                                    TOTAL           $ 61,617.90

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

       The amount is calculated in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plan, which may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.  The amount is based on charges applicable to the proposed 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 1 bedroom dwelling, less credit for the existing house.

 

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

 

14.       The following security deposits requirements are to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $3000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

15.       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)         $2000.00         -           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:

 

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

 

a)     Remove the redundant vehicular crossing servicing the site in Church St.

 

b)     Construct a new heavy-duty vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Cowper St.

c)     Construct a new concrete kerb and gutter for the full Cowper St and Church St site frontages. This shall include the reconstruction of the drainage pits and lintels located at kerb on the Cowper St and Church St intersections

d)     Carry out a full depth, 1.50 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

e)     Remove the existing asphalt footpath along both the Cowper St and Church St site frontages and replace it with a 1.80m wide concrete footpath and pram ramps with the remainder of the unpaved area turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

17.       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.

 

18.       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.

 

19.       The internal driveway must be 5.00 metres wide for the first 5 metres inside the property and located at least 1.50 metres clear of the north-western side boundary at the Cowper St alignment. Details, showing compliance with this requirement, are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

20.       A work zone is to be provided to the development site and details of the work zone location and the prescribed fee for the installation of a “work zone” having a minimum length of 12 metres must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and pedestrian safety.

 

21.       All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details, showing compliance with this requirement, are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

22.       The applicant must, at no cost to Council dedicate a 2.5m x 2.5m splay corner for road widening purposes on the north/east corner of the site at the Cowper St and Church St intersection. The existing front fence is to be reconstructed in accordance with the 2.5m x 2.5m splay.

 

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

 

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

 

Cowper St Frontage – 100mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

Church St Frontage - 100mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

25.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,441.00 calculated at $16.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. 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:

 

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

 

27.       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.

 

28.       Any electricity substation required for the site is to be located within the site and is to be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant is to liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging the construction certificate to see if an electricity substation will be required for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

29.       Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

h)         All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

30.       On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5  year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

31.       All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property.

 

32.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

33.       A “restriction as to user and positive covenant” must be placed on the title of the subject property in conjunction with the registration of any future plan of subdivision or strata subdivision for this property.  Such restriction and positive covenant shall relate to the onsite stormwater detention system and shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.   The "restriction as to user and positive covenant" are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.   The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

This condition is to ensure that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

34.       The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

35.       The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

36.       The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

37.       Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

38.       A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, and approved by an accredited certifier, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the location of the detention basin with finished surface levels, contours at 0.2 metre intervals and volume of storage available.  The outlet pipe from the detention basin to its connection with Council's drainage system, must be indicated on this plan in conjunction with the following information:

 

a)         location

b)         pipe diameter

c)         gradient

d)         pipe material ie PVC or EW etc

e)         orifice size (if applicable)

 

39.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system/absorption system. The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

 

·    The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

40.       A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

41.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

42.       Two covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

d)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

43.       All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

44.       As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table and/or be impacted on by seepage water the basement carpark or any similar structure is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

a)   Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be charged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

b)   Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

45.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

46.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials.

 

47.       A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the development.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

48.       The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

49.       The garbage room area(s) will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 32 x 240 litre bins (16 garbage bins & 16 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

50.       The landscaped areas shown on the landscape plan prepared by Greenplan Landscape Architects numbers LSK 01 and LSK 02, dated 14.11.01, and LSK 03, dated 25.3.02, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, a certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer with relevant qualifications in landscape architecture or horticulture. The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations and mature height of proposed planting.

 

h.         Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of an occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

51.       To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

52.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

54.       Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation  shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

55.       All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

Tree Management

 

56.       The applicant shall submit payment of $870.00 to Council, being the cost for Council to supply and install 6 x 45 litre street trees at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Account Number 43450030 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for the works to be undertaken.

 

57.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees:

 

a)   One Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located towards the southern property boundary.

 

58.       The applicant is required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the dripline/s of the subject tree/s.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

59.       In order to ensure the retention of the four (4) Cupressus species (Ornamental Cypress), one (1) Plumeria species (Frangipani), one (1) Melia azedarach (White Cedar), one (1) Populus species (Lombardy Poplar) and one (1)  Araucaria columnaris (Cook’s Pine) located along the southern property boundary and the one (1) Cupressus species (Ornamental Cypress) and one Cedrus deodara (Deodar Pine) located within the north eastern corner of the site in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the retention of the existing tree specimens with the position of the tree trunks and full diameter of the tree canopies clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show no alteration in the existing soil levels or the location of any structures, basement carparks, services, footings, paving, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, pipes, cutting or battering of the existing soil profile, or any excavations within a radius of 2.5 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

A foundation wall should be put in place before any excavation commences for the basement carpark by using a screw pole on a pier or other suitable methods. Details of the proposed method shall be submitted to, and approved by a certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. If any excavation takes place before the area is stabilised, the soil from the Protection Zones will fall into the trench. This will result in the loss of root material in the Tree Protection Zones and cause possible loss of soil and destabilise the trees.

 

c.         The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective  fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

d.         Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

e.         Any excavations required for garden beds, retaining walls, services, pipes, paving etc within 2.5 metres of the tree trunk shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

f.          The installation of woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm within the fenced off protection area as described in Point c.

 

g.         Watering of the tree (within the fenced off area) three times a week for the duration of the period of the refundable deposit described in Point i.

 

h.         The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

i.          A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee of $9,270.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the  preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

QUANTITY

 

        SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

1

Cupressus species

(Ornamental Cypress)

 

$510.00

 

1

Cedrus deodara

(Deodar Pine)

 

$2,560.00

 

1

Melia azedarach

(White Cedar)

 

$470.00

 

1

Araucaria columnaris

(Cook’s Pine)

 

$1,530.00

 

1

Plumeria species

(Frangipani)

 

$1,150.00

 

4

Cupressus species

(Ornamental Cypress)

 

$2,060.00

 

1

Populus species

(Lombardy Poplar)

 

$990.00

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$9,270.00

 

 

The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the trees have been retained in good health.

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

60.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $34,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.   The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12)  months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority  providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of Council.

 

b.   Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

c.   In order to organise for a final inspection for the Occupation Certificate or for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Town Planning Department to advise that the site is ready to be inspected. Town Planning will then organise for a final inspection to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount  shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

 

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

 

61.       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.

 

62.       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:

 

63.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

64.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, veranda’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovestated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

65.       The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the use of the premises and the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

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

 

66.       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 accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

            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.

 

67.       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 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

68.       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.

 

69.       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.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       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.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s approval:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

74.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

75.       In addition to the matters contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following matters are to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development consent, prior to the occupation of the building:

 

a)         car parking and vehicular access

b)         landscaping

c)         stormwater drainage

d)         external finishes and materials

 

76.       A coloured works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

77.       A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

 (a)       Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

 (b)       On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

78.       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.

 

79.       Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

80.       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.

 

81.       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.

 

82.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

83.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·          location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          construction noise and vibration management.

 

 The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

84.       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.

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·          the slope of the land

·          site access points and access control measures

·          location and type of all sediment control measures

·          location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·          material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·          location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·          proposed disposal of site water

·          location of building operations and equipment

·          proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

85.       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.

 

86.       A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

87.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

88.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

89.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

90.       Access to and from the right of way to the rear of the premises providing access to and from Church Street is to remain unimpeded at all times during construction.

 

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

 

91.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

            In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a)   Part B1                      -       Structural provisions

            b)   Part C1                      -       Fire resistance and stability

            c)   Clause D1.4               -       Exit travel distances

            d)   Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

            e)   Part E4                       -       Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

f)    Part F5                       -       Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

            Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

 

A2       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 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUVERT

PAULA MORETTI

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR PLANNER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 19/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

54 COOPER STREET, MAROUBRA  

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/093/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for D/093/2002 for alterations and additions to the existing garage for Councils consideration and determination. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 5 April 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plan

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

5 April, 2002

FILE NO:

D/093/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the existing garage.

PROPERTY:

 54 Cooper Street Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Peter Au

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan.

 

The development application is for a brick extension with fibre cement and colour bond box gutter to an existing detached double car garage.  The subject property is located on the south west corner of Gale Road and Cooper Street Maroubra.  The garage is located at the rear of the property adjoining the eastern boundary of 163 Gale Road.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to a condition requiring the fibre cement and colour bond box gutter to be reduced in height.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development details the extension of the existing rear detached garage by 1.06 metres towards the street alignment of Gale Road.  The proposed extension will be of brick construction with colour bond roof and a colour bond and fibre cement box gutter.  The new dimensions of the garage with the extension will be approximately 11 metres long by 6 metres wide and will be setback from the street boundary by 1 metre. 

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the south western corner of Gale Road and Cooper Street in Maroubra. The property contains a two storey dwelling house with a detached brick garage at the rear.  Immediately to the west of the property is 153 Gale Road. The surrounding area contains a mixture of one and two storey dwelling houses.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

   Building Applications:

 

   88/00497/BZ – New House - Rejected 16/06/88

                                         

   88/00497/BZ - New Dwelling - Approved 19/07/88 

                   

   94/01118/BZ – Alterations and Additions to Dwelling - Approved 09/11/94

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998 on the 18 th of January 2002 and no submissions were received.

 

6.        TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, and the following comments have been provided:

 

6.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

No Building Services objections have been raised to the application subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

6.2       Engineering Issues

 

The Councils Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services raised no objection to the application subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1       Policy Controls

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

 

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  

 

4.3 Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be 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.

 

The proposal adopts many of the characteristics of the existing garage and will have minimal impact on the streetscape of Gale Road with the exception of the proposed box gutter.  The box gutter will add bulk to the garage and detract from the streetscape of Gale Road.  Should any approval be granted the box gutter should be reduced in height to reduce it impact on the streetscape of Gale Road.

 

4.4 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.

 

The existing garage is setback from the rear boundary (the eastern boundary of 153 Gale Road) by 0.17 metres for the wall and has a 0 setback at the eaves. The proposed extension is setback on the same alignment as the existing garage and will have minimal impact on the adjoining properties access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air. 

 

8.2     Impact on adjoining development

 

The proposed extension to the detached garage will have some impact on the amount of sunlight available to the front yard area of the neighbouring property at number 153 Gale Road.  However given that number 153 Gale Road faces north, and the garage extension only constitutes an additional 1.06 metres in length and will retain a 1 metre setback from the street alignment of Gale Road, it is considered that there will not be any adverse impact .

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan with respect to car parking and building setback.  The proposal subject to design amendments is considered an acceptable form of development and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant it’s development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/093/2002 seeking an Alterations and additions to the existing garage. at 54 Cooper Street Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 01 and 02, dated 11 January 2002 and received by Council on 18 January 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.      The proposed colour bond and fibre cement cladding fascia to the roof of the garage is to be reduced in height from 500mm to 300mm in order to reduce the visual impact of the development on the Gale Road streetscape.  Details of compliance are to be included with the construction certificate plans.

 

3.      There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure onto the adjoining premises.

 

         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:

 

4.      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. 

 

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

 

5.      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.

 

6.      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 accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

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

 

7.      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.

 

8.      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.

 

9.      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.

 

10.    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 standards of construction, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

11.    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 & Building Services.

 

12.    Building materials, sand, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

13.    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 exempt under Councils Local Approvals Policy.      

 

ADVISORY MATTERS

 

A1.  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.

 

A2.  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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plan

 

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 20/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Shalom College - 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

01/00931/GJ A

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. D/0931/2001 Section 96 Modification – To reduce building to three storeys with associated amendments to construction for Councils consideration and determination. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report Dated 10 April 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY KYRIACOU

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ACTING MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

10 April, 2002

FILE NO:

01/00931/GJ A

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification – to reduce building to three storeys with associated amendments to construction.

PROPERTY:

 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Group GSA Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council

 

Approval was granted at Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting on 11 December 2001, to erect a new 3-5 storey building within the southern courtyard of the existing Shalom College at the University of New South Wales with frontage to Barker Street. The proposed development is ancillary to the existing use and provides additional student accommodation and facilities within the educational establishment.

 

The Section 96 application seeks to delete the fourth and fifth levels of the approved building. The proposed deletion of level 4 and 5 will result in the overall reduction in bulk and scale of the building and a better integration with the scale of the existing buildings currently on the subject site.

 

The recommendation is for Error! No document variable supplied. subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The Section 96 application seeks to modify the original Development Consent No. 931/01 by reducing the scale of the building down to three levels. It is proposed to delete levels four and five. The application also involves internal reconfiguration and modifying the accommodation areas from unit style accommodation to individual student rooms.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

Shalom College is located within the south western corner of the University Campus, adjacent to the Barker Street boundary. The subject site, although located on the University Campus, occupies a leased area of 2650m2 on separate title and is managed by The Shalom Institute. The site is relatively flat and has frontage to both Barker Street and an existing access road within the University grounds. The immediate adjoining buildings on the site consists of the 5 storey Barker Apartments to the east and two storey master’s house to the west. Nearby development consists of a mixture of commercial and residential uses of varying form and scale including McDonalds, a child care centre, motel, dwelling houses and a three storey residential flat building with parking under on the western corner of Barker Street and Harbourne Road.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 931/2001 was approved on the 11 December 2001 for a new 3-5 storey building in the southern courtyard of Shalom College at the University of New South Wales.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

No objection is generally seen to the proposal in respect to compliance with the Building Code of Australia, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The Council at its meeting on 13 November 2001 agreed to the applicant’s request for a waiver of the Master Plan requirement for Development Application No 931/2001.

 

8.        RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1   Substantially the same

 

The proposed amendment involves the deletion of the top 2 levels of the approved building. The external configuration of the building is similar to that of the original footprint, with some modifications and the proposal is considered to be substantially the same development to that originally approved.

 

9.2   Consideration of submissions

 

The application was notified to adjoining properties and advertised, no submissions have been received.

 

10.  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.

 

Proposed Design in relation to Existing Building and Natural Environment

 

The applicant is seeking approval to modify the original consent to delete levels 4 & 5 of the recently approved student accommodation building at the Shalom College located within the grounds of the University of NSW. The proposed reduction in the building height and scale will improve the integration of the buildings design with the existing building on the site. It is considered that the design elements of the modified building are substantially congruous with the characteristics found in the surrounding built form. The modulation and articulation of the buildings form are integrated with the design of the existing College buildings and the Barker Street  streetscape.

 

The proposed internal reconfiguration of the building entails replacing the unit style accommodation on the first and second floor levels and providing bedroom/ensuites for student accommodation. The proposal will result in a total increase of 4 additional beds in lieu of the original approval, however, an overall reduction in the height and floor space ratio of the building.

 

Carparking

 

There are no proposed changes to the provision of carparking on the site, as the changes in student number is considered to be negligible. A parking survey was provided as part of the original application and it was accepted that the survey found that the development was likely to result in an increase of only 2-3 vehicles. Moreover, it was contended that the extra students residing on campus would reduce parking demand simply because they will not be required to travel to and from University, thus making car ownership unnecessary.

 

In view of the above, the proposed modification is unlikely to generate a demand for any additional carparking.

 

Amenity impacts

 

The proposed modifications involve an extension in the depth of the balconies extending from the students accommodation, and replacing the previously approved glass balustrades to open metal railing balustrades. It is considered that the proposal will have minimal amenity impacts as the building fronts Barker Street to the south,  and will only overlook the grounds of Shalom College along the other elevations.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved 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 931/2001 for Section 96 Modification – to reduce building to three storeys with associated amendments to construction at 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington subject to the following conditions:

 

Condition No. 1 be modified to read:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Group GSA Pty Ltd numbered DA 1000A, DA1101A, 1102A, DA2001B, DA 2002B, DA 2003A, DA2004A, DA 2005A, DA 3001B, DA 3002A, DA 3003A and Landscape Plan drawing No. 201056L/DA.00 Revision 00 of 4 October 2001 and received by Council on 5 October 2001, as amended by the plans prepared by Group GSA Pty Ltd numbered DA 1000E, DA 1101E, DA 1102E, DA 2001E, DA 2002E, DA 2003C, DA 2004E, DA 3001E, DA 3002E & DA 3003E, dated 22 February 2002 and received by Council on 26 February 2002.  

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 














MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

12.1     By Councillor C. Matthews – Installation of Playground Equipment in Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park.  (98/S/1792 xr 98/S/0178(3)

 

That Council give consideration in the 2002/03 budget to the installation of playground equipment in the Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park.

 

12.2          By Councillor C. Matthews – Mowing Council’s Nature Strips.  (98/S/1073 xr 98/S/0178(3)

 

That Council give consideration in the 2002/03 budget to providing a free service for the mowing of Council’s nature strips in front of residences occupied by Pensioners and other elderly people unable to perform this task.

 

12.3          By Councillor – M. Matson – Accumulated Impact of Developments.  (98/S/4394 xr 98/S/0178(3)

 

That a report come to the Health, Building and Planning Committee on the desirability of supporting a change to Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to specifically include the “accumulated impact of similar aspects of successive developments on an area” as a matter for consideration in the assessment of Development Applications.

 

12.4          By Councillor – M. Matson – Council Rangers Response to Illegally Blocked Driveways.  (98/S/3520 xr 98/S/0178(3)

 

That, in the interests of preserving the rights of residents to free access to their properties, a report be brought before the next Council Meeting outlining:

 

a)                  Options for enabling residents to obtain an urgent and immediate response from Council Rangers when parked vehicles are obstructing private driveways; and

 

b)                  Legal options Council Rangers have available to them to affect the immediate removal of vehicles blocking driveways, including (not withstanding Section 651C(1) of the Local Government Act) the option of moving the vehicle.

 

12.5          By Councillor J. Greenwood – Ethical Investment of Surplus Council Funds.  (98/S/0078(2) xr 98/S/0178(3)

 

That Council:

 

a)      Write to Local Government Financial Services inviting them to address Council on where they are at in developing an ethical investment portfolio; and

 

b)      Will routinely present reports to the Administration and Finance Committee when knowledge of a suitable ethical investment fund, rated by an appropriate rating agency (eg. Moodys Investors Service Inc or Standard and Poor’s Investors Service Inc) becomes available.