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

 

21 June 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, 25TH JUNE 2002 AT 6:00 PM

 

1           Council prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 28TH MAY, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 18TH JUNE, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2002 - ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF

2

 

 

7           DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORTS

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 70/2002 - DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMERCIAL/TOURISM/LEISURE SIGNS

4

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 71/2002 - TREE SHROUDING POLICY

10

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 72/2002 - KINGSFORD MARKET SITE

14

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 73/2002 - TENDER 18/01 SUPPLY OF WHEEL LOADER

17

 


7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 74/2002 - TENDER 09/2002 - SUPPLY AND ERECTION OF BLEACHER SEATING FOR COOGEE OVAL

21

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2002 - COASTAL WALKWAY ACCESS

26

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 76/2002 - EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION TO BOWEN LIBRARY - REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

28

 

7.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 77/2002 - CANCER COUNCIL - RELAY FOR LIFE

34

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 21/2002  CORPORATE SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT PROJECT

39

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 22/2002 - PAY BY PHONE FACILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF COUNCIL RATES

50

 

 

9           Director Planning & Environment's Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 35/2002 - CAFE/RESTAURANT OPERATING HOURS

52

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 36/2002 - 34 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK

62

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                       

By Councillor Procopiadis - Stables in Properties within the City.

107

11.2

By Councillor Matson – Failure by Defence Department to advise residents of date of Demolition of Asbestos Sheds.

107

11.3

By Councillor Matson – Risk Assessment Report on Industrial Hazards.

107

11.4

By Councillor Matson – Response to CMFEU Request for tighter Council approach to Asbestos Cement.

107

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF

 

 

DATE:

6 June, 2002

FILE NO:

Personnel

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act, 1993 states:

 

“The General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the Council on contractual conditions of senior staff”.

 

ISSUES:

 

This report details the contractual conditions of senior staff employed by Council as at 30 June, 2002.

 

On 9th October, 2001, Council agreed to abolish the position of Director Community Services and reallocated the responsibilities for the position to the positions of Director Environmental Planning and Community Development and Director Governance, Management and Information Services. As a result, on 11th December, 2001, Council also approved an increase in remuneration for both positions and adopted a recommendation of the Committee-of-the-Whole detailing the following Directors’ titles:

 

·          Director Planning and Community Development; and

·          Director Governance, Management and Information Services.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The following is provided for the information of Councillors in accordance with Section 339 of the Act:

 

 

Position Title

Occupant

Total Remuneration Package as at 30 June 2002

 

General Manager

 

Mr Gordon Messiter

 

$211,957pa

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services

 

 

Mr Michael Savage

 

$157,453pa

Director Planning & Community Development

Formerly – Director Planning & Environment

 

 

Mr Bill O’Brien

 

$135,000pa

Director Governance Management & Information Services

Formerly – Director Governance & Management Support

 

 

Mr Mark Hummerston

 

$135,000pa

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the General Manager’s Report No. 11/2002 entitled “Annual reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff” be received and noted; and

(b)        That Council endorse the name of “Department of Planning and Community Development”.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 70/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMERCIAL/TOURISM/LEISURE SIGNS

 

 

DATE:

4 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1044     

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 May 2002, Council resolved:

 

“that a report be prepared for the June Council Meeting which details the Council’s signage strategy for directing visitors to commercial/tourism/leisure locations, including the design criteria associated with the strategy and the timeline for installation of such signage.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Outdoor Advertising

 

Council presently does not have a specific signage strategy for directing visitors to commercial/tourism/leisure locations.

 

However, the subject is briefly discussed in Council’s Development Control Plan - Outdoor Advertising.  In this DCP under ‘Part 3 – Types of Advertising and Definitions Used’ there is a section heading on public information/directional sign that states:

 

“is a sign erected for the specific purpose of directing the travelling public to buildings or places of tourist interest or recreational facilities, where Council is satisfied that:

 

Ø the advertising relates to a specific building or place;

 

Ø the principle purpose of the advertisement is to direct the travelling public to that building or place; and

 

Ø the dimensions and overall size of the advertisement are no larger than would reasonably be required to so direct the travelling public.”

The DCP also provides Council’s requirements for:

 

·    Special Uses Zones (Section 2.4) that is “usually associated with the provisions of services by Government or public authorities.  These activities include schools, churches, electricity substations, public parking areas, hospitals and drainage works.”

 

·    Open Space Zones (Section 2.5) for both passive and active recreational purposes are generally managed by Council and include areas used for organised sporting activities or specific functional activities e.g. walking trails, picnic areas, etc.  Additionally, there are private recreational facilities that can include bowling clubs, sporting clubs, tennis courts, golf clubs, etc.

 

All of the above uses may have a legitimate need for adequate directional and identification advertising and the DCP identifies Council’s control of the advertising to be used.

 

Tourist Signposting

The RTA in association with Tourism New South Wales have published ‘Traffic Engineering Manual, Part 12, Tourist Signposting’, which is intended for use by officers of the RTA, Tourism New South Wales, Councils, and consultants when considering the signposting of tourist attractions, regions and routes.

 

An extract of the RTA document is attached to this report and a copy of the document is available on file for perusal.

 

The RTA notes that AS 1742.6 - Service and tourist signs for motorists is the basis for tourist signposting throughout Australia and that the Authority’s manual deals with its application in New South Wales.

 

Signposting Practice in Australia

As stated in the RTA document, the key document, which outlines signposting practice in Australia, is the Australian Standard, AS 1742, Manual of uniform traffic control devices that comprises 14 parts.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that on those occasions where there is a need to provide directional/identification advertising signage as outlined in Council’s Development Control Plan - Outdoor Advertising then this DCP should be adopted.

 

For all tourist signposting in the Randwick City Council area, the RTA’s ‘Tourist Signposting’ manual should be adopted and for all other types of directional signposting, Council should adopt Australian Standard AS 1742 where practicable, including the RTA’s ‘Interim Guide to Signs and Markings’.

 

Council should adopt the design criteria as required under the RTA’s ‘Interim Guide to Signs and Markings’ and Australian Standard AS 1742 where practicable.

In some cases it may not be practicable to use either the RTA or Australian Standard, in these cases the design criteria should be to use suitable good practice in line with the above standards and guides.

 

The timeline for installation of the signage will vary depending upon the availability of materials and whether Council, Council’s contractor or the RTA are responsible for the supply and installation of the sign.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council adopts the following signage strategy for directing visitors to commercial/tourism/leisure locations within the Randwick Council City area:

 

a.   Development Control Plan - Outdoor Advertising where applicable.

 

b.   The RTA’s ‘Tourist Signposting’ manual for all tourist signposting.

 

c.   RTA’s ‘Interim Guide to Signs and Markings’ and Australian Standard AS 1742 where practicable for all other types of signage.

 

2.   Council adopts the design criteria as required under the RTA’s ‘Interim Guide to Signs and Markings’ and Australian Standard AS 1742 where practicable, and in cases where it is not practicable to use either the RTA or Australian Standard, the design criteria should be to use suitable good practice in line with the above standards and guides.

 

3.   The timeline for installation of the signage under Council’s control be as soon as practicable, subject to the availability of materials.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Extract copy of RTA's manual - 'Tourist Signposting'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 





  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 71/2002

 

SUBJECT:

TREE SHROUDING POLICY

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1100

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 28 August, 2001, resolved to adopt a policy (with several provisions) of shrouding trees growing in public places that had been poisoned or vandalised.

 

ISSUES:

 

This resolution was instigated because of concerns that numbers of trees on public land were being poisoned and/or vandalised by persons who were likely to gain some benefit from the removal of such trees. A ‘tree’ in this instance refers to any Council tree defined as such under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

This benefit might involve the improving of ocean views, an increase in the value of a particular property, improved access to a property or any number of other reasons, but the overriding concern in instances such as these is the loss of vegetative amenity to the community.

 

‘Shrouding’ shall be taken to mean covering of the canopy of the tree in a suitable cloth, or, where the tree has been entirely removed, the erection of a cloth supported by poles of a similar size to that of the original tree/s.

 

By shrouding trees growing on public land that have been poisoned or vandalised, it is reasoned that any benefit which may be derived by the perpetrator of any such action could be negated and that this response would alert the public to the fact that Council was taking a pro-active stance when addressing issues such as this.

 

The resolution contained a number of provisions that could be used in conjunction with the resolution itself in dealing with related matters.

 

These comprised the following:

 

1.   “depending on which is the greater, fining offenders either $10, 000 or up to the financial value of the tree as determined by the Tree Preservation Officer;

 

2.   the offering of a reward of up to $500.00 for information leading to conviction of the offenders;

 

3.   the erection of a sign stating ‘These trees have been vandalised. Randwick City Council will pay a reward of $500.00 for information leading to conviction of the perpetrators’ where a number of trees are damaged at any one site;

 

4.   significant vegetation other than trees being shrouded at the discretion of the Tree Preservation Officer; and

 

5.   shrouding shall continue until the vegetation has been replaced by the growth of suitable replacement vegetation.”

 

Because of concerns regarding a number of aspects of this resolution, particularly relating to Council’s exposure to public liability should it be implemented, advise was sought from a variety of seaside Councils as well as from Randwick City Council’s legal representatives.

 

Although the vandalising/destruction of trees growing on public land is a common problem facing Councils situated in coastal and/or waterway areas, none of the Council officers contacted by Council’s Tree Management Officer (representing a wide range of local Councils) actively pursue the procedure of shrouding vandalised trees.

 

He spoke to representatives from Wollongong Council in the south, Gosford Council to the north, and a large number of appropriate officers from Councils in between. Most of the Council officers spoken to indicated they had a variety of procedures for dealing with the issue of vandalised/poisoned trees but none of the Councils actually had a shrouding policy implemented.

 

Manly Council sometimes placed large banners on affected trees with a reward and contact number attached. This was relatively effective in that their positioning highlighted fairly obviously who might benefit from the removal of any affected vegetation.

 

One of the reasons Manly Council was reluctant to place large banners on trees was that there was a relatively high ongoing maintenance component and also that innocent residents were often penalised for something they did not do.

 

Some years ago Woollahra Council placed a number of large shade cloth ‘sails’ in the canopy of a very large and significant Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) that had been poisoned in Wolseley Road, Point Piper.

 

The reason for this, apart from drawing people’s attention to the terrible loss to the community of a tree asset well over 100 years old, was to deny the perpetrator the panoramic views they hoped to gain once the tree had been removed.

 

However, this ‘shrouding’ was only ever viewed by Woollahra Council as drawing public attention to the issue and, because of public safety concerns, the shrouding was soon removed and the tree cut down shortly afterwards.

 

The actual resolution passed by Woollahra Council in relation to the poisoned Norfolk Island pine clearly stipulated that the shroud should only “remain in place until, in the opinion of the Manager – Public Domain, the remains have become a public risk”.

 

It is this exposure to public risk that poses the real dilemma for Council when considering the implementation of any sort of tree shrouding policy.

 

Advise provided by Council’s legal representatives recommends that where, in the opinion of a qualified Council officer, any vandalised/poisoned tree “is dead or is likely to die, then the tree should be removed by a qualified arborist”.

 

This advise further states that where Council is the owner of certain public open space, case law clearly identifies Council’s responsibilities ensuring public safety on such lands and the liability faced by Council when not discharging its duty of care to members of the public.

 

The formulation of any tree shrouding policy must therefore be predicated on Council’s ongoing duty of care to members of the public who use its public open space areas.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In considering the legal advise provided by Council’s legal representatives in this matter, as well as in dealing with the public safety issues identified as Council’s responsibility under its duty of care obligations, the most appropriate response to the poisoning/vandalisation of Council tree assets should be a policy that both limits Council’s public liability exposure and effectively achieves the objectives of the resolution passed by Council on 28 August, 2001.

 

Paragraph A of the original shrouding resolution states that a fine of either $10,000 or up to the financial value of the tree as determined by the Tree Preservation Officer should be imposed on any offender.

 

Council’s legal representatives are of the opinion that Council has no power under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Local Government Act 1993 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1989 to impose such a monetary fine.

 

They advise that the best course of action in terms of “fining offenders” is by way of prosecution in the Local Court where a magistrate can impose an appropriate fine for a breach of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) pursuant to Sections 125, 126 and 127 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Recent amendments to Council’s TPO are reflective of Council’s ability to prosecute persons for vandalism of trees in a public place. These amendments should ensure that the prosecution of an offender would realise fines of up to $10,000 or more depending on the nature of the vandalism and the significance of the tree(s).

 

To effect the policy and in particular the erection of “the structure”, Council should, by way of proper procedure, make application by way of Development Application (“DA”) to itself for the erection of “the structure”.

 

This procedure has a two-fold affect in that Council is legally undertaking the construction of “the structure” pursuant to the Environmental Assessment and Assessment Act 1979 as a temporary structure and secondly, the affect of the DA may result in the offenders being identified by other people who upon receiving notification of the DA may alert the Council as to the offenders.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council adopts a tree shrouding policy containing the following elements:

 

·    If a tree on public land owned by Council has been vandalised by poisoning, ringbarking, etc, and it is a qualified Council officer’s opinion that such a tree is dead or likely to die, then the tree should be removed by a qualified arborist;

 

·    Upon removal of the tree and if it is deemed appropriate by the relevant Council officer, Council should construct a ‘banner’ by way of three (3) poles (in a triangular arrangement), being properly secured in the ground and having a suitable material fitted to the poles to act as a banner (“the structure”);

 

·    The pole/banner structure should mirror the size of the removed tree as much as practicable;

 

·    The following wording (or similar) should be written on the banner: “The healthy tree that once grew here has been vandalised by persons unknown and has had to be removed. Randwick City Council will pay a reward of $500.00 for information leading to the conviction of the person(s) found responsible for such vandalism”;

 

·    The Council has the discretion to determine the duration by which “the structure” should remain. If the Council determines that “the structure” should remain for a period of time there should be regular maintenance of “the structure” to ensure that the same and its construction remain safe to members of the public;

 

·    A replacement tree(s) should be planted if possible and the length of the period of time “the structure” remains may depend on the regrowth of the replacement tree(s).

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 72/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

KINGSFORD MARKET SITE

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

P/002600

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Councils at its April 2002 meeting resolved that a report be put “to the June Council meeting on the present status of the affected community based organizations and on a process of community consultation within these organizations.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Arising out of Councils resolution at the April Council meeting Design Collaborative P/L have been engaged to prepare a rezoning proposal of Kingsford Market Site on behalf of Council and the STA.

 

Design Collaborative have advised that the time table for the lodgment of a application for rezoning will take approximately 10-12 weeks. The proposed time table is attached for Councils consideration.

 

The community based groups that may ultimately be affected by a redevelopment of the site include Meals on Wheels, Kingsford Legal center and the Rotary Club Markets.

 

A commitment has been given that all community groups on the site that Council will facilitate their relocation to either a new location or within any new development of the site. It is in Councils interest in both the short term and the long term have the site with as few encumbrances as possible, and as such the relocation of these facilities off site is the preferred option.

 

This however may not be possible. If this is the case then provision may be made by way of development controls on the site to accommodate some of these facilities.

 

Discussions have been held directly with the Rotary Club in regards to the community markets. This facility provides significant income for Rotary as part of its fundraising activities. It is clear that the community markets cannot remain on the site in any future redevelopment. There are Consultancy Timetable however significant opportunities available to relocate the markets to another site within the city area.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst the rezoning application is still some months away from completion, the processing of such an application may well take up to twelve months to complete, and any plans for redevelopment may take some time after that. As such negotiations will continue throughout the application process to accommodate the needs of these groups.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services Report dated 20th June 2002 in relation to the Kingsford Market Site be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Consultancy Timetable

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services'

Report 73/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 18/01 SUPPLY OF WHEEL LOADER

 

 

DATE:

21 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4292

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Councils current wheel loader (WA320 Komatsu purchased in April 1996) has been in operation for approximately 9000 hours and is due for replacement in accordance with Councils Plant Replacement Policy.

 

The loader has played an integral role in Councils recycling and material handling operations.

 

Council has set aside sufficient funds in the Plant Replacement Reserve to cover the purchase of the replacement loader. Funds have been allocated in the current financial year to purchase the replacement.

 

ISSUES:

 

The location of the recycling facility which does not have an on site storage limits the size of the loader able to be purchased. It is essential that the replacement loader is able be transported by road without any time restrictions normally applied to oversize vehicles and be fitted with a ride control system to enhance road-holding capability and reduce the risk of back injury to the operators.

 

Due to the expansion of the recycling operation it is essential that the loader purchased performs well on loose surfaces, climbing stock piles, dozer operations and in load and carry operations. It is essential that the replacement unit perform as well as or better than the existing unit as the work load at the site has increased significantly over the last 3 years and is anticipated to continue to increase in the future.

 

Five suppliers tendered ten different machines. Not all of the units tendered met the minimum specification; these units were not given field test or evaluated further. Machines were culled on their ability to meet Councils performance and technical criteria in the specification.

 


The machines that were culled were:

 

·    Volvo L90D

·    Caterpillar 950G

·    Case 821C

·    Kawasaki 70ZIV-2

·    Case 621C XP

·    Case 621C XT

·    Case 721C XT

 

The technical specification for the Volvo L90D was evaluated but not considered for field testing due to the lower bucket breakout force and dump height when compared to the existing machine. It was also noted that the averages sales of these units over the ten years the Volvo has been on the market was fairly low at less than 5 per year. The low sales volume indicates that this loader is not highly favoured by operators in the civil construction industry and will most likely have limited resale. Field service was limited when compared to other suppliers.

 

The Caterpillar 950G was not evaluated any further due to the size and weight of the loader. The loader weighed over 17 tonnes and with a bucket width just under 3 metres was considered too heavy and large to be driven daily to and from the recycling centre without creating inappropriate and unsafe conditions for other road users. The weight of this machine could have lead to premature tyre failure and increased wear, as regular transport by driving on paved surfaces is not recommended.

 

The Case 821C exceeded the maximum engine horsepower rating, weighed in excess of 17 tonnes and was considered too heavy and large to be driven daily to and from the recycling centre due to the risk of premature tyre failure and increased wear. It was also recognised that the bulk of the machine and road speed would create unacceptable risks to other road users. No further evaluation of this unit was carried out.

 

The Kawasaki 70ZIV-2 was not considered for further evaluation due to the limited number of units that have been sold into the Australian market and the limited service facilities and support available in Sydney. The low sales volumes of the Kawasaki indicate that this unit is not favoured in the civil construction market and will most likely have limited appeal in the second hand market.

 

The Case 621C XP and XT models tendered by Case Equipment were culled because they failed to meet the minimum engine horse power rating in the specification and had safe working loads less than 80% of the current machine and would significantly reduce productivity when dealing with high density products.

 

The Case 721C XT is designed as a tool carrier with a parallel loader frame instead of a “Z bar” design. This design feature reduces the break out force of the bucket, decreases the dump height of the bucket by 250mm and is not as suitable for loading the trucks used in the recycling operation. This unit was considered unsuitable and no further evaluation was conducted.

 

 

The loaders selected for onsite field-testing and evaluation were the

 

·    Case 721C

·    Komatsu WA320-3

·    Caterpillar 938G.

 

The Case 721C had lower break out force, Safe Working Load of the materials handling bucket.  The lower performance in these critical areas would have a significant impact on the ability of the loader to meet the demands in the recycling centre.

 

Case is unable to match the onsite service capabilities of Caterpillar and Komatsu who have superior numbers of field service units available.

 

The Case did not perform as well as the other units field-tested. There was a notable difference in the performance of this unit whilst pushing materials, on loose materials and it’s general stability. Concerns were raised about the layout of the controls, access ladders and entry to the cab. The operators stated that they thought there was an unacceptable risk of injury entering and alighting from the cabin.

 

Due to safety concerns and lower performance and productivity when compared to Komatsu and Caterpillar this option was not investigated further and no detailed analysis was conducted.

 

The Komatsu WA320 did not perform as well as the Caterpillar 938 when field-tested. The operators were disappointed with the ability of this unit to climb stockpiles, its traction on loose materials and bull dozing performance. They also stated that they thought this machine had slower travel times in load and carry operations that make up a large proportion of the activities in the recycling operation.

 

The Caterpillar 938 clearly demonstrated that it was able to handle bull dozing operations on the beach, climb stockpiles and had adequate traction on loose materials. The operators stated that in their opinion the Caterpillar loader out performed the other machines tested in the field and had superior all round performance.

 

Direct comparison of Komatsu and Caterpillar technical specifications and operating costs indicated that there were only minor differences in the theoretical performance of the loaders. The operators were most insistent that there was a significant difference in the operational performance of the loaders citing the superior performance of Caterpillar in ability to climb stock piles, quicker times in load and carry operations, traction on loose materials, bull dozing operations and the perception that stability was also superior.

 

There is a significant difference in the purchase price of these units, $20,880 favouring Komatsu. This equates to an ownership cost differential of approximately $3.00 per hour. Operating costs excluding the cost of ground engaging equipment calculated using information tendered by the suppliers varies by 3 cents per hour in favour of Caterpillar.

 

The estimated return on both items after 7,000 hours of operation is approximately 45% of the purchase price. The predicted return determined by using information tendered by the suppliers favours Caterpillar by approximately $20,000.

CONCLUSION:

 

Based on the information relating to residual values tendered by Caterpillar approximately 50% of the $20,000 premium on the purchase price will be recouped when the loader is disposed of. Operating costs are essentially the same and operators consider the Caterpillar to have superior performance characteristics in our operation

 

The efficient operation of the recycling facility relies on the selected loader being able to perform all the tasks required and the acceptance of the operators to ensure that the loader is operated at the highest possible production standards.

 

The additional expense incurred with the purchase of the Caterpillar 938G should be offset by the productivity advantages that the operators have indicated they are able to achieve. It is worth noting that operator acceptance of this class of machine should result in increased productivity and higher standards of care by operators due to increased ownership in the decision to purchase this machine.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council purchase the Caterpillar 938G tendered by Gough and Gilmore for the sum of $268,485 exclusive of GST and accept the trade in offer of $83,000 net of GST.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Technical Specification Summary

General Information Product Support

Cost Summary

Estimated Owning and Operating Costs

Evaluation Scoring Guideline

Evaluation Scores

Cost/Needs Analysis  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT & EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 74/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 09/2002 - SUPPLY AND ERECTION OF BLEACHER SEATING FOR COOGEE OVAL

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4656

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES       

 

INTRODUCTION:

Tenders were called for the supply and erection of a relocatable bleacher seating system to be installed at Coogee Oval.  After a 3-week tendering period the Tender closed on 21st May 2002.

Three tenders were received with all submitting bids that conformed to the requirements of the Tender Specification to a varying degree. Discussion and evaluation of these Tenders are set out in this report.

BACKGROUND:

On an annual basis from April to September for approximately the past thirty years, Council has erected a temporary grandstand (bleacher) seating system on the western side of Coogee Oval to accommodate home ground union and league supporters. However, in early 2001, Council’s existing system had to be scrapped when it was revealed it was no longer usable due to extensive rust, rotting timbers and the fact it was deemed non compliant in regards to current safety standards, which posed dangerous public liability issues to Council.

This system required significant logistical efforts and was also extremely labour intensive. A Council crane was needed to load and unload the components, as they were unable to be lifted manually, with assembly requiring 8 skilled tradesmen 3 full working days to assemble, similar for disassembly, making a total of 48 man-days.

For such a high profile location and high use facility as Coogee Oval, there was an obvious need to update to a system of superior efficiency that was adaptable to a multitude of uses for other Council operations, while also complying with the relevant standards to ensure the safety of users.

In order to provide seating for the 2001 season, quotations were received from capable companies for the hire of a temporary system, whereupon Council requested a financial contribution from the two beneficiaries, Randwick Rugby Club (RRC) and Souths Juniors. RRC contributed $10,000 towards the hire with no contribution from Souths. The cost to Council for 2001 season hire totalled $35,238.60.

To avoid ongoing costs of this amount, Council applied to the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation in November 2001, for financial assistance under the 2001/2002 Regional Sports Facility Program, with the intention of purchasing a modern, more efficient system. While awaiting advice on the success of the application, seating had to be supplied for the 2002 season. Again, RRC have contributed $10,000 towards the hire with no contribution from Souths. Cost to Council for 2002 season hire to date being $9,241.20.

 

The D.S.R advised Council on 27th May 2002 that our application was unsuccessful; the current system will remain in use for the remainder of the season at Coogee Oval.

 

ISSUES:

Council Expenditure

To date, the total cost to Council of hiring bleacher seating for the 2001 and 2002 season is $44,479.80, with an additional $20,000 received from RRC, totalling $64,479.80.

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Specification Part A ‘Conditions of Tendering’ advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1999.  Tenderers’ were also given an indication of the selection criteria, (see below) to be referred to in the evaluation:

(a)        Price;

(b)        Whole of life cost;

(c)        Compliance with Specification;

(d)        Assembly, disassembly and storage requirements;

(e)        Occupational Health and Safety;

(f)         Quality Management System of the Tenderer.

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

Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian O’Leary, Landscape Technician-Parks, David Meredith and Tree Management Officer, Bryan Bourke.

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was:

1.   The evaluation committee undertook an objective quantative assessment of the completed schedules, (but not pricing information) submitted as part of each tender.  In particular Schedule B17 asked a number of specific questions drawn from the Part E “Requirements Specification”. 

2.   The schedule information and the specific questions were listed under the relevant criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation.  Team members’ scored the criteria individually with reference to the “Scoring Guideline” structured prior to the tender closing date.  Individual scores were then averaged into a final team score and recorded on the “Evaluation Score” sheet. 

3.   The tenderer’ quotations submitted in Schedule B2 “Tender Submission” were then compared.

4.   The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet and related to the “fixed lump sum cost”. 

5.   The results of this assessment are attached.

Summary of Tenderer’:

WK Moodie & Associates Pty Ltd

The office of Moodies is located at Gladesville NSW. They have operated for 23 years and have extensive knowledge of Local Government operations, having been named as an approved supplier for outdoor furniture by the NSW State Contracts Control Board.   

This tenderer offered two options, either 10 units in a 3-row arrangement for $36,190 (the lowest price submitted), or 6 units in a 5-row arrangement for $57,242 (3rd highest price). This system is time consuming to assemble due to the fact it requires the use of hand tools and specialised nuts, bolts and washers, and if misplaced, would create unnecessary time delays, and the ongoing costs associated with re-ordering would best be avoided.

The units in both options have an assembled surface area twice as large as the other tenders’ modules, and did not offer a suitably modular system that could be easily relocated or assembled for other uses at short notice.

This tender failed to meet the minimum storage area requirement and was the only tender to exceed the maximum allowable individual component size, meaning it was too large for transport on existing Council vehicles.

The labour required for assembly, 10 man-days, and disassembly, 6 man-days, was the least efficient of all tenders’ and was considered excessive.

This tenderer achieved the lowest evaluation score, and the team concluded that a recommendation to Council was not justified, as it did not offer an improvement in efficiency compared to Council’s previous, outdated system.

Oldfields Access Pty Ltd

Oldfields’ are scaffold and hire specialists based at Padstow NSW. They achieved the highest evaluation score and submitted the highest purchase price of $74,865.00.

This system has been used successfully at Coogee Oval for the past two seasons and has displayed a distinct level of efficiency and adaptability that is necessary for such a high profile application, having on previous occasions been relocated and re-configured at short notice with minimum effort.

This tenderers’ system is 50% more efficient to assemble than the closest competitor and was the only one to satisfy the assembly and disassembly requirements (2 man days each) set out in the questionnaire. No fixtures or tools are required for assembly as it features a unique clip lock system that fixes to the frames and supports.

This tenderer offered the shortest time frame for production and delivery at 28 days, are the only tenderer that manufacture and supply all their own components, and provided the most comprehensive documentation for compliance to the relevant safety standards, which eliminates the risk of public liability posed to Council.

Considering the successful system is to be erected on an annual basis at Coogee Oval as well as being used for other Council events, the ease of assembly associated with this system is a major feature.

The evaluation team were impressed by the efficiency of this system and concluded that it was far superior to the alternatives presented, and over the expected 20-25 year service life, would offer Council significant cost savings through reduced labour costs.

Steel Post and Rail Pty Ltd

Steel Post and Rail are based in Currumbin, Queensland, with a NSW Sales Office located at Wetherill Park. They submitted two options in either a 3-row arrangement for $51,860.00 (2nd lowest price) or 4-rows for $69,100.00 (2nd highest).

This tenderer achieved the second highest evaluation score, but submitted the longest time frame to manufacture and deliver their system at 6 weeks.

This tenderer did not display sufficient evidence of compliance to the necessary safety standards, which raises dangerous public liability issues. It was also of some concern to the evaluation team that the quality control system referred to in the tender expired in 1997, with no evidence that it had been renewed.

Specialised tools and fixtures are required for the correct assembly of this system, and although they are included in the original purchase price, the likelihood of ongoing costs associated with repair or replacement of these items are a cost that would best be avoided. A replacement impact wrench that is necessary for assembly costs $550.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The 3 tenders considered by the evaluation team all demonstrated an ability to undertake the Scope of Works and fulfilled the necessary OH&S and Environmental requirements.

The evaluation team agreed that the tender received from WK Moodies and Associates could not succeed in being recommended to Council as it failed several of the selection criteria. Most notably, the time frames given for assembly were deemed excessive and unsatisfactory, as it would not improve Council’s position in regards to obtaining a more efficient system.

Oldfields Access Pty Ltd achieved the highest evaluation score for its performance in the selection criteria, a main feature being its superior efficiency in comparison to the other tenderers’. The cost savings that Council could expect over the 25-year term through reduced labour costs with this system is also a major factor. The evaluation team concluded that this tender offered the most appropriate system to meet Council’s requirements.

 

The tender submitted by Steel Post and Rail Pty Ltd received the second highest evaluation score. However, the lack of sufficient safety documentation for such a high profile application was of some concern to the evaluation team, as it raised dangerous public liability issues. The use of specialised tools and fixtures also concerned the team, an example being the cost to replace the specialised impact wrench at $550. This is a likely, and ongoing cost that could otherwise be avoided. 

 

Council had allocated $16,700.00 in the 2001/2002 Capital Works Program for the purchase of bleachers in anticipation that Randwick Rugby Club and Souths would match this amount, with the Department of Sport and Recreation financing the remaining 50% cost.  The unsuccessful grant application now leaves a short fall of $58,165.00.  Should Council not proceed with the tender and continue to hire the seating, funds for the hire would be allocated from Council’s Parks Maintenance allocation.  It would seem appropriate that Council approach both South Sydney Juniors and Randwick Rugby Club to assist in the shortfall in funding should these approaches not be successful, then the additional funds should be allocated from Parks Maintenance allocation. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council accepts the Tender submitted by Oldfields Access Pty Ltd for the supply and erection of their bleacher seating system at Coogee Oval at a cost of $74,865.00.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Evaluation Scores.

Evaluation Scoring Guidelines.

Cost/Needs Ayalysis      

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

DAVID MEREDITH

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN - PARKS


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 75/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

COASTAL WALKWAY ACCESS

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1528

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on Tuesday 28th May, 2002 resolved that:

 

“In respect of the Coastal Walkway, a report be prepared for the June Council Meeting that outlines the current status and any remedies to the impediment to access in Cuzco Street, South Coogee and the possible future access problem to the pathway adjacent to 30 Marine Parade, Lurline Bay.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The property at 49 Cuzco Street has been identified as the property providing the best opportunity to provide a link a pedestrian link from Cuzco Street to Seaside Avenue being a roadway that abuts the rear of 49 Cuzco Street.  A number of attempts have been made to discuss the available options with Ms Waugh, the owner of 49 Cuzco Street, however all invitations to attend Council to discuss the matter with the Mayor and General manager have not been accepted.  The owner has advised via the telephone conversations that she is not interested in selling her property at this time and that if in the future she decides to sell the property, she will contact Council.

 

Council had previously sought legal advice as to the options available to Council and the options put forward by Bowen & Gerathy were:

 

1.   Attempt to procure a “Right of First Refusal” where Council would have first option to purchase the property once it came on the market.  If the Right of First Refusal was granted, then Council could pursue to have a caveatable interest in the property embodied in the deed;

 

2.   Create an easement over the property;

 

3.   Compulsory acquisition of the property.

 

Given that Council’s attempts to negotiate a Right of First Refusal have not progressed, Council may need to consider its options under the second or third categories.

 

Coastal Walkway at 30 Marine Parade

 

A report was previously presented to Council in July 2001 regarding the Coastal Walkway access across the frontage at 30 Marine Parade, Maroubra.  Preliminary discussions were held with Ms L Fok, the owner of the above property, and although no conclusive agreements were achieved, Council Officers were given the impression that the owner would be prepared to enter into negotiations and has referred this matter to her solicitor to be advanced.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Coastal Walkway is an important resource in the Randwick City Council area and every effort should be made to ensure that the walkway is accessible to as many users as possible and that the walk be located as close to coast as can be.  With this in mind, it is considered that negotiations should consider post haste with the property owners at 30 Marine Parade Maroubra and 49 Cuzco Street Coogee with a view to securing permanent access over lands currently under private ownership.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.   A further written attempt be made to secure a First Right of Refusal over the property at 49 Cuzco Street, Coogee and in the event that a positive outcome not be achieved on this occasion, Council pursue its other options as outlined in this report.

 

2.   The matter of negotiating the purchase of a portion of 30 Marine Parade Maroubra be referred to Council’s Solicitors and that they be engaged to negotiate the purchase of the above land with the current owner’s solicitor within the terms previously resolved by Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 76/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION TO BOWEN LIBRARY - REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4519

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council meeting dated 28 May 2002, Council deferred its consideration of the expressions of interest for the Bowen Library and requested additional information to assist with their consideration of these expressions of interest. Additional information was requested in relation to the structural capacity of the existing building to accept additional floors and project scoping considerations.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Structural Capacity of Bowen Library

 

A preliminary structural assessment was undertaken for the proposed partial third floor addition. The structural assessment report undertaken by Meinhardt, consulting engineers, indicates that the building has the structural capacity for the third storey addition. Should Council ever decide to increase the height of the building, a full detailed structural analysis will be required.

 

Scoping Considerations

 

Council officers considered many options in regard to the future of Bowen Library. These options included:

 

1)         Masterplanning the entire building which included moving the library to the bottom floor with a mezzanine floor in the carparking area and providing the HACC facility within the existing building shell. This option was not pursued as the commercial tenants have approximately 7 years left in their lease agreements with Council and considerable grant funding would have been needed to break the tenants contracts and the subsequent compensation.

2)         Construction of three additional storeys, one floor as the HACC facility and the top two floors as residential units to be sold for profit by Council. This option was not pursued as Council would need to construct additional security parking on site and install security lifts to service the residential units.

3)         Construction of three additional storeys, one floor as the HACC facility and the other two floors as leased for profit Commercial office space.   This option was not pursued due to the limited onsight parking available. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s officers in the scoping phase of this project considered all of the above options and concluded that there was insufficient flexibility in the existing building design to adequately accommodate these options. 

 

The recommendation of the previous report (attached) on this matter considered by Council on the 28th May, 2002 is as follows:

 

1.         Council invite Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Construction and Infinity Constructions to submit tenders for the construction of the third storey addition to the Bowen Library; and

 

2.         All other contractors be advised that their submissions have been unsuccessful on this occasion.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The above report be noted.

 

2.         Council invite Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Construction and Infinity Constructions to submit tenders for the construction of the third storey addition to the Bowen Library; and

 

3.         All other contractors be advised that their submissions have been unsuccessful on this occasion.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Previous Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services Report No. 60/2002.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR

 


 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 60/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION TO BOWEN LIBRARY

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4519

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has obtained development consent and a construction certificate to allow commencement of the third storey addition to Bowen Library. Expressions of Interest were called to allow experienced building contractors to lodge their interest to undertake the building additions and allow council to short list the most suitable building contractors to undertake the construction works. Eighteen expressions of interest received by Council.

 

This report compares all eighteen expressions of interest received by Council and evaluates the submissions against the evaluation criteria. A shortlist of the five most competent building contractors is provided in the recommendation.

 

ISSUES:

 

Project Background and Funding

 

The original project budget is $1,190,000, which is funded by the community development section 94 contributions and a grant from Home and Community Care, State Government Agency. A design and development application for the third storey addition was prepared by Council’s consultant architects strictly in accordance with the Community Services design brief and the original project budget of $1,190,000.

 

After the development prelodgement meeting held on 13 December 2000 Council’s town planners considered that the Bowen Library, being a prominent building at the northern entry of the Maroubra Central Business District, should enhance the Streetscape, set a standard for other developments within the Maroubra CBD and recognise the observations of the NSW Premier with respect to encouraging better building and streetscape aesthetics. Council’s Town Planners then engaged the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to prepare a Townscape Master Plan for the Maroubra CBD and identify building design features on the Bowen Library that would achieve the town planning objectives mentioned above.

 

Once the Townscape Master Plan had been prepared, Council’s consultant architects were rebriefed to redesign the third storey in accordance with the Townscape Master plan and that the Director of Community services would make funding provision for the expected increase in construction costs. The anticipated increase in construction cost to meet the Townscape Master Plan objectives is in the order of $310,000. Once tenders are submitted to Council the final tender price will be known.

 

Tender Time Frame

 

It is anticipated that the selected tenderers will submit tenders in early July 2002 and the contract awarded in August 2002.

 

Discussion of Expressions of Interest submissions.

 

Council received 18 expressions of interest for the construction of the third storey addition to Bowen Library. All expressions of interest were assessed against the evaluation criteria tabled below with the objective of short listing the best builders to be selected to submit a tender for the construction works.

 

The evaluation criteria used to assess the competencies of the builders were as follows:

1.   Demonstration that the Builder is qualified with a Builders Licence

2.   Experienced in constructing projects valued in excess of $1Million

3.   Successful experience in local government and other public sector projects

4.   Client satisfaction in projects of similar size and nature with the provision of references

5.   Demonstration that the builder has appropriate resources to undertake the project.

6.   Demonstration that the builder is compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

7.   Demonstrated environmental management policies and procedures

8.   Financial capacity to carryout a project of this magnitude with the submission of an audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for the last financial year.

9.   Demonstration of the builders working quality system in accordance with ISO 9001.

 

 

Those building contractors who scored a fail either did not comply with the evaluation criteria or did not submit evidence that demonstrated compliance with the evaluation criteria and thus cannot be further considered as a potential selected tenderer.

 

Richard Crooks Constructions fulfilled all the evaluation criteria to the highest level and is the most experienced building contractor to carryout similar works to very high standards.

 

Beach Constructions also demonstrated superior experience and capability in building similar projects to a high standard of quality.

 

TCQ Builders demonstrated similar competencies to Richard Crooks Constructions and Beach Constructions in meeting all of the evaluation criteria.

 

Fugen Constructions again demonstrated high competency level and demonstrated excellent client satisfaction with their references.

 

Infinity Constructions demonstrated similar experience in public sector project with provision or good references however had a lower level of resource availability and capability than the four-abovementioned builders. Nevertheless Infinity Constructions demonstrated that they are very capable of undertaking a project of this nature.

   

All other building contractors who achieved a score could reasonably undertake the construction works commensurate with their respective levels of experience and expertise. The five top scoring building contractors, Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Constructions and Infinity Constructions have all demonstrated superior competencies in all evaluation criteria.  

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The short-listing of tenderers from the call for expressions of interest for the construction of the third floor addition to Bowen Library has been very successful with a good number of competent builders submitting their interest in this project. Council can be confident that detailed and competitive tenders will be submitted from the proposed short listed building contractors.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council invite Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Constructions and Infinity Constructions to submit tenders for the construction of the third storey addition to the Bowen Library; and.

 

2.   All other contractors be advised that their submissions have been unsuccessful on this occasion.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DRAINAGE CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Builder

Licenced Builder Yes/No

Experienced similar works in excess of $1Million Yes/No

Experienced in similar public sector projects 40%

Client satisfaction references for similar projects 40%

Resource availability and capability 20%

Compliant with Occupational Health and Safety Act Yes/No

Environmental Management Policies and Procedures Yes/No

Financial Capacity Yes/No

Demonstrated Quality Systems to ISO 9001

Yes/No

Score 100%

Richard Crooks Constructions

Yes

Yes

38

38

20

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

96%

Beach Constructions

Yes

Yes

35

38

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

TCQ Builders

Yes

Yes

35

35

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

88%

Fugen Constructions

Yes

Yes

32

35

16

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

83%

Infinity Constructions

Yes

Yes

29

35

15

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

79%

Brisland

Yes

Yes

29

30

15

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

74%

Cordukes

Yes

Yes

34

18

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

70%

Austruct Constructions

Yes

Yes

25

30

14

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

69%

St Hilliers Interiors

Yes

Yes

27

25

16

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

68%

Axis Building Group

Yes

Yes

21

30

14

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

65%

Safin

Yes

Yes

22

22

12

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

56%

Haslin

Yes

Yes

25

18

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

53%

AMFM Constructions

Yes

Yes

20

20

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

50%

Barker Construction Services

Yes

Yes

21

17

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

48%

Steve Watt

Yes

Yes

19

26

13

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Fail

Commercial Building Group

Yes

Yes

19

20

13

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Fail

Wintertons

Yes

No

5

5

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Fail

Equitibuild

No

No

0

0

0

No

No

No

No

Fail


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 77/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

CANCER COUNCIL - RELAY FOR LIFE

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3067

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES         

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Cancer Council has approached Council to secure a location to conduct a fundraising event under the banner of  “Relay for Life”.  The original request was to use Coogee Oval for this event, but following a number of meetings with Council Officers Grant Reserve was recommended as a preferred venue.   The event is proposed to be held in November 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Cancer Council has held a number of  “Relay for Life” fundraising events throughout the state.   The format for the activity is a 24 hour community based fundraising event.  The Cancer Council describes the event as a:

 

.....fun, outdoor, 24 hour event where teams of 10-15 people take turns to run or walk around a local oval to honour those who have had their lives touched by cancer.

 

The event is a celebration of life, bringing together cancer survivors, carers, family and friends with the common goal of defeating cancer.

 

“Relay for Life” events are planned in over 25 communities throughout NSW in 2002.  Up and coming events include:  Sutherland Shire, Penrith, Wagga, Grifith, Dungog and many more.

 

“Relay for Life” involves the whole community.  It is not promoted as a sporting or endurance event, although records may be kpet of laps completed by each team.  A village-festival atmosphere is created to enable entire communities to attend “Relay for Life” and support participants, raise awareness of cancer issues, make donations and have fun. 

 

During discussions with the organisers of the event from the Cancer Council, issues such as noise, lighting, provision of additional toilets facilities, car parking, etc, were discussed and the organisers advised that from past experiences these operational matters would be managed in a way to provide minimal disruption to surrounding residences. 

 

Council officers agreed that an initial community advisory notice be distributed to nearby residents to gauge community support or objection to the proposal.  One objection to the proposal was received, together with a number of responses supporting the event.  The objection, which is attached, states that the park is unsuitable for such an event and the event should be held elsewhere.   It is not agreed that the basis of the objection is sustainable as the organisers will be required to comply with conditions concerning containment of noise and associated overnight curfew, provision of additional toilet facilities and the like.

 

The organisers will be required to submit a formal application for the event and during the review process, appropriate conditions will be attached to any approval to ensure any disruption to the surrounding residential area is kept to a minimum and Council’s park asset be adequately protected.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that this community based fundraising event should be supported.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council give in principal support to the conducting of this event at Grant Reserve, Coogee, subject to conditions of approval being satisfactorily meet and that Council actively promote the event through its available resources. 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Correspondence from Cancer Council.

2.  Objection from Mitchell-Walsh Family.   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 





  

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 21/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Corporate Systems Replacement Project

 

 

DATE:

11 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3323

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Stowe TCS software was initially marketed in NSW in 1984 and was subsequently purchased by the Syndicate members using separate tender processes. Since the selection and introduction of the TCS software solution, the Syndicate Members have undergone major structural, business practice and process changes. This, combined with customer demands for easier to use, more functional software, provide a business case for a detailed evaluation of the options open to Syndicate Members for delivering a total Council software solution.

 

In December 1998, Stowe was purchased by Geac Computers Pty Ltd, which offers its own suite of HR/Payroll and Financial Management software called SmartStream. Geac Ltd subsequently announced, in early 1999, that support for TCS would cease on June 30, 2002.  This position was subsequently amended during 2000.

 

Confronted with this situation, the Councils that had purchased the TCS software raised the issue of moving beyond the current TCS platform at a special meeting of the Geac Information Technology Special Interest Group  (IT SIG) in June 1999.  This was a grouping of all the N.S.W. Councils who were using the TCS software, consisting of:

 

Baulkham Hills Shire                             Blue Mountains City

                Hornsby Shire                                                      Hurstville City

            Ku-ring-gai                                           Lake Macquarie City

            Parramatta City                                    Randwick City

            Rockdale City                                      Sydney City

            Wyong City

 

As a result of these discussions a broad process was mapped out, to address the issue, which included demonstrations by major IT industry suppliers and a tender process for the selection of consultants to assist with the development of functional specifications. General presentations on software and industry developments were provided to senior Syndicate Members staff by 9 major IT Industry supplier organisations in September 1999.  As a result of these presentations and having gained a good understanding of what was available in the market place, the most critical issue that needed to be addressed was deciding what needed to be done to ensure that this replacement issue was addressed appropriately.

It was also after these presentations that it was decided that, since there had been a high level of interest and co-operation to date between the IT Managers, and given the common interests and basic common need of the Syndicate Members, maximum mutual benefits could be gained by:

 

·    Working together co-operatively to address the Geac decision and replace the core software suite 

·    Minimising costs of replacing the core functional software suite

·    Increasing professional/ personal relationships and greater understanding

·    Exploring potential opportunities for resource sharing and group based responses to common IT issues.

 

Representatives from each Syndicate Member formed a team to pursue the issues. A number of working principles were adopted so that Members could work together effectively. These were meant to provide a formal framework for the effective functioning of the Syndicate without unduly restricting and hampering the individual organisational interests as they worked co-operatively to successfully achieve the key group objective of replacing the core suite of Geac Software.

 

This group was to continue to have regular meetings and make decisions, along the journey to select a replacement software system that would meet the common and unique functional requirements of the Syndicate Members. The Syndicate General Managers became formally involved with the project in March 2000, by entering a formal agreement to join the Syndicate and form the Steering Committee for the project.  The existing group became known as the “Operational Committee” and was to be responsible for making operational decisions and overseeing day-to-day progress of the project.  However, the role and function of the Operational Committee exists and is performed in a much wider and strategic context, guided by the Steering Committee.

 

On a more practical and strategic basis the Syndicate assessed the nature and scope of the project and determined that, to be successful, it was appropriate to segment it into a number of phases.  These were identified to be as follows:

 

Phase 1

 

·    Develop a common set of business requirements using a participative process.

·    Identify and document the unique business requirements of each of the Syndicate Members.

·    Develop a high level set of functional specifications based on common and unique individual business and technical requirements.

·    Minimise the individual costs by sharing the costs of the project between Members.

 

Phase 2

 

·    Prepare an Expression of Interest (EoI) and associated documentation as well as an EoI evaluation methodology.

 

Phase 3

·    Conduct an EoI evaluation and determine a shortlist of companies to be invited to submit a Tender.

Phase 4 (partly completed)

 

·    Develop a detailed set of technical requirements

·    Develop a Request for Tender

·    Invite tenders from the short-listed organisations

·    Conduct an information briefing session for the Tenderers in respect of the Tender requirements

·    Conduct a Tender evaluation

·    Enter into negotiations with the Preferred Tenderers

·    Sign contract(s) with the selected contractor(s)

 

Phase 5 (yet to be started)

 

·    Develop conversion and implementation plans

 

Phase 6 (yet to be started)

 

·    Implementation of selected solution

 

Technical Aspects and RFT

 

The detailed technical requirements that were developed in Phase 4 included the following functional coverage:

 

·    Common Features

·    Property, Rates, Valuations and other Land related modules

·    Financials

·    HR/Payroll and other related modules

·    Asset Management

·    Property Management

·    Library System

·    Water & Sewer Billing

·    Document Management

·    Customer Contact Management

·    Central Names and Addresses

·    Executive Information and Integrated Corporate Planning

·    Workflow

·    E-business

 

The Request For Tender document, including the detailed technical requirements, was circulated to the following short-listed organisations on 8 June 2001:

 

·    Cap Gemini Ernst & Young

·    Deloitte Consulting

·    Geac Enterprise Solutions

·    IBM Global Services

·    Price Waterhouse Coopers

·    Sanderson

·    Solution 6.

Price Waterhouse Coopers decided to withdraw from the process as they felt that there was significant investment needed, which they were unable to justify in the timeframe given. Tender responses from the other 6 organisations were received by the closing date of 3 August 2001. Geac’s tender was non-conforming and was not further considered.

During the evaluation process 3 small Councils withdrew from the Syndicate citing affordability and other organisational issues as the reason. As such the Syndicate now consists of the following:

 

·    Hornsby Shire Council

·    Lake Macquarie City Council

·    Parramatta City Council

·    Randwick City Council

·    Wyong Shire Council

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The intention of the Syndicate is to engage the highest ranked tenderer for the provision of the new Corporate Information Systems and as a Managed Services Provider (MSP) to implement and support the systems over a 10 year period.

 

The MSP will manage the purchase of the required applications and hardware for each Syndicate member and during the implementation phase provide implementation services and establish applications, application integration and hardware at the MSP’s premises.  Communications to each Syndicate Member will be managed via the Internet and via a virtual private network and is the responsibility of the MSP.

 

The MSP will also be the holder of the application licenses and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of systems integration, the support and maintenance of applications and hardware, and the ongoing relationship with the various software vendors for 10 years.  This is subject to a Service Level Agreement between the MSP and the Syndicate.

 

A critical part of the tender process was the constant consultation with key staff throughout each Council in the following stages:

·    Development and sign-off of the systems user specification containing in excess of 11,000 functional requirements

·    Development of the Evaluation Strategy

·    Development of the tender documentation including the selection criteria

·    Attendance at, and feedback from, the demonstrations of application software

·    Attendance at, and feedback from, the reference site visits

 

In addition, a heavy emphasis has been placed on the needs of customers, including ensuring that future systems will provide easy access for customers via the internet.

 

The system user specifications were developed recognising the need for compliance with the following:

·   


·    NSW State Records Act

·    NSW Privacy and Personal Information Act

·    NSW Local Government Act & Tendering Regulations and Standards

·    Environmental Protection Act

·    NSW Companion Animals Act

·    Protection of Environment Operations Act

·    State Environmental Planning Policies

·    Australian Accounting Standards and Government Reporting Requirements

·    Australian Taxation Office Legislation

·    Occupational Health & Safety Legislation

·    Superannuation Legislation

·    Workers Compensation Legislation

·    Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation

·    National Competition Policy

·    A number of Australian Standards

·    Australian Bureau of Statistics Requirements

·    A number of American and International Standards related to Library systems

·    NSW Residential Tenancies Act

·    Copyright Legislation

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

·    Water Management Act and Water Supplies Authorities Act (for Wyong Shire Council)

 

Some of Council’s policies will need to be reviewed, to embrace the MSP model/ access and the community’s access to self-service, in the following areas:

 

·    System security and access by staff and customers

·    Records Management

·    Freedom of Information

·    Customer payment methods

·    Public commitments to customer service levels

·    Key performance indicators

 

Environmental Implications:

Positive Impacts

·        Visual/ scenic impact – increased proactive asset management and maintenance of infrastructure assets

·        Residential amenity – enhanced management of information related to land usage and increased responsiveness to customer expectations for service

Negative Impacts

·        None identified due to the proposal being an office-based information system.

 

 

Social Implications:

It is anticipated that some of the organisational and social impacts, as a result of the implementation of the Corporate Information Systems, will be as follows:

Organisational Impacts

·    Introduction of world class Tier 1 systems to provide best practice business processes and service delivery

·    Enablement of a major corporate change program

·    Increased up-skilling and job satisfaction opportunities for staff

·    Better matching of staff skills and competencies to job tasks, through system skills matching and succession planning, resulting in less lost-time injuries and greater productivity

·    Major efficiency gains through whole-of-council data integration and automated business processes using system workflow

Social Impacts

·    Enhanced perceptions of Councils as modern service providers in step with community expectations regarding e-business

·    Proactive management of infrastructure asset conditions leading to a reduction of hazards in the community and a corresponding reduction of the risk exposure of the Councils.

·    Increased mediums through which customers can interact with Councils, face-to-face, by phone, by mail & email and via self-service using the internet

 

Risk and Insurance Implications:

 

The Syndicate has identified following risks and consequences and determined that they are of low or moderate likelihood. Mitigation strategies have also been identified to manage the risks.

 

Risk

Consequences

Likelihood

Mitigation Strategy

 

Inability to negotiate a fixed price contract

·    Threat to implementation deadline

·    May lead to budget overruns

Low

·    Define the expectation of systems and implementation services at a very detailed level in the contract

·    Restate earlier MSP undertakings

Inability to contain the cost movement for support post-go live

·    Costs will exceed those used as the basis of the decision to enter into a contract

 

Moderate

·    Attempt to negotiate annual price increases based on CPI only

·    If not as above, identify the index that has historically provided the least movement in prices within the IT Industry

Inability to sign a contract  by July 2002

·    Additional costs for maintaining TCS

·    Not possible to go live with Financial by 1/7/2003

Moderate

·    Budget for parallel running of systems

·    Consider additional resources to reduce implementation period

MSP/ 3rd parties delay commencing the  implementation process after contract signing

·    Threat to implementation deadline

·    Additional costs in maintaining TCS for a longer period

Low

·    Include damages provisions in contract 

·    Ensure same damages provisions are in back-to-back agreements between MSP and 3rd parties

Syndicate delays in commencing the  implementation process after contract signing

·    Threat to implementation deadline

·    Additional costs for  maintaining TCS

·    Possible additional costs claim by MSP

Low

·    Ensure all Syndicate Councils have appropriate staff available for involvement in the implementation pilot

·    Ensure project plan accurately reflects ability of Councils to provide staff throughout the implementation

Applications do not deliver expected functionality

·    Dis-satisfaction of users

·    May not support business needs

·    Anticipated initial savings and reductions over time not realised

·    Threat to implementation deadline due to modification to software

Moderate

·    Ensure contract places obligations on MSP to rectify where non-compliance with functional requirements is evident

·    Ensure remedies exist within contract where breach continues

·    Include damages provisions in contract for delays

MSP goes into liquidation

·    Need to establish a new application hosting environment

·    Syndicate Councils managing contracts with 3rd parties directly or enter into another MSP contract

·    Unexpected costs incurred over and above those expected with the MSP

Low

·    Included software license novation clauses in contract with MSP

·    Ensure same novation clauses are in back-to-back agreements between MSP and 3rd parties

·    Ensure software source code is held in escrow

·    Ensure data is held off the MSP site by a 3rd party

·    Have 1st right of refusal over hardware purchase

Application vendor(s) go into liquidation

·    No support for software

·    MSP to assess source code to support the software in the short term

·    MSP to source alternate software in the longer term

Low

·    Ensure software source code is held in escrow

·    Ensure contract provides for the MSP to source alternate software where 3rd party is in liquidation

MSP withdraws from the market

·    Need to tender again

·    Syndicate Councils managing contracts with 3rd parties directly or enter into another MSP contract

Low

·    Ensure ‘transition out’ provisions are included in contract

·    Included software license novation clauses in contract with MSP

·    Ensure same novation clauses are in back-to-back agreements between MSP and 3rd parties

·    Ensure data is held off the MSP site by a 3rd party

·    Have 1st right of refusal over hardware purchase

Major contract default or professional neglect

·    Councils unable to conduct normal business

·    Councils carrying liabilities not covered by their insurance

Low

·    Ensure MSP and 3rd parties have professional indemnity, public liability insurance

·    Ensure the insurance are renewed annually, and if not, costs for insurance to be deducted from amounts owed to MSP

OPTIONS:

The Syndicate considered the following options as possible alternatives to the MSP approach, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each.

 

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Do nothing

·    Less cost in the short term

·    TCS will be unsupported mid 2003

·    Council will be unable to conduct its business

·    Only low level disaster recovery capability

Implement Geac replacement software for TCS

·    Continuing to deal with current supplier

·    Less cost

·    Hardware and data accessible

·    No application hosting or communications outsourcing costs as is in house hosting

·    No integration of software

·    No cross application workflow

·    Limited e-business capabilities

·    Only accessing Tier 2 software with reduced functionality to support the business needs

·    Geac not able to provide all application software, hence Syndicate needs to take responsibility for all contracts/ licenses

·    Increases in staff required to support Tier 2 software

·    No higher level disaster recovery capability

Implement other Tier 2  replacement software for TCS

·    Less cost

·    Hardware and data accessible

·    No application hosting or communications outsourcing costs as is in house hosting

·    No MSP taking responsibility for all 3rd party contracts/ licenses

·    No integration of software

·    No cross application workflow

·    Limited e-business capabilities

·    Only accessing Tier 2 software with reduced functionality to support the business needs

·    No application hosting or communications outsourcing as is in house hosting

·    Increases in staff required to support Tier 2 software

·    No higher level disaster recovery capability

Implement Tier 1 replacement software for TCS without an MSP

·    Hardware and data accessible

·    No application hosting or communications outsourcing costs as is in house hosting

·    No MSP taking responsibility for all 3rd party contracts/ licenses

·    No MSP to take responsibility for establishment and maintenance of integration over 10 years

·    No integration of software

·    No cross application workflow

·    Increases in staff required to support Tier 1 software

·    No higher level disaster recovery capability

 

 

 

Financial Implications     

 

The replacement of the Stowe TCS software represents a major cost for Council. In anticipation, Council has been maintaining an IT reserve to fund the purchase of the replacement system. This reserve, together with some further funding over the life of the contract, should meet the project costs.

 

By working as a syndicate of Councils, we have been able to capitalise on our combined purchasing power, resulting in a significantly discounted project cost. Further, we anticipate longer-term savings through both the increased functionality and efficiency of a new corporate system, as well as avoiding the need to purchase significant new computer hardware and infrastructure during the term of the contract.

 

Although final prices are yet to be determined through negotiation of the contract and a service level agreement, we anticipate a cost of approximately $1.9 million per year for Randwick, for the duration of the ten-year contract.

 

As indicated previously, I am of the view that this is affordable for Randwick, particularly if we can realise savings in the longer term through the efficiencies the new corporate system will offer.

 

More detailed financial information can be provided, but as it remains commercial-in-confidence, it will be necessary to resolve into Committee-of-the-Whole for such discussion.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Council has been through an exhaustive process as part of the Syndicate to identify the most advantageous approach to the replacement of the aging TCS legacy system currently in use.

 

We and the other Syndicate Councils are now looking to adopt the MSP approach to sourcing, implementing and supporting world-class Tier 1 software applications. This will see each Council in a leading position in terms of e-business within the community and as one of the most progressive and efficient Councils within the Local Government sector.

 

The solution from the highest ranked tenderer offers Council significant benefits and an opportunity to contract with an MSP at a greatly reduced price, due to the buying power that the Syndicate has been able to command. It also offers Council potential returns from the successful sale of the model to other Councils over time, and the input of an ever-growing user base to fund research and development to keep the solution evergreen.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         Council rejects all tenders.

2.         Council enters into negotiations with the highest ranked tenderer for the following reasons:

(a)        The tender process has been ongoing for a period in excess of 2 years;

(b)        The preferred solution is complex and many contractual issues particularly relating to price and service levels, still need to be negotiated and there has been reluctance by tenderers to go into such detail unless they are selected as preferred tenderer.

(c)        Inviting fresh tenders is unlikely to achieve a more satisfactory outcome for Council than the exhaustive process conducted to date.

3.         Council delegates to the Mayor, General Manager and Director Governance, Management & Information Services authority to complete negotiations with the highest ranked tenderer on a suitable contract and service level agreements.

4.         That if required, approval is given for the affixing of Council’s seal on the contract and associated documents.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 22/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PAY BY PHONE FACILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF COUNCIL RATES

 

 

DATE:

18 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0052

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Administration & Finance Committee, at its meeting held on 12 February 2002, resolved that a report be prepared on the feasibility of Council introducing a pay by phone facility for the payment of Council rates.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Council currently offers a wide range of options for payment of rates for the convenience of its ratepayers.

 

Current methods of payment available to ratepayers include: -

 

1.   Payment by Direct Debit.

2.   Payment through the mail

3.   Payment at the Commonwealth Bank.

4.   Personal payment at Council’s office including the use of Eftpos facilities for debit and some credit cards.

5.   Bpay phone and internet payments.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

With the introduction of Bpay in 1998 the opportunity to pay by phone or via the internet was made available to Council’s ratepayers.  Payments can be made via cheque, savings and some credit card accounts.

 

Investigations made as to costs involved in accepting credit card payments by phone indicated this facility to be a relatively expensive additional option (the estimated cost being $10.58 per assessment based on the average rate assessment paid by four instalments) without any identifiable offsets.

 

In view of the wide range of payment methods currently available and the high cost of providing additional methods of payment no changes are suggested at this time.  

 

However, with rapid changes in technology and possible reductions in costs this situation may change in the future.  As a consequence, this matter will be kept under review.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That no action be taken at this stage to expand on the current methods available to ratepayers to pay rates.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

  

Director Planning & Environment's Report 35/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Cafe/Restaurant Operating Hours  

 

 

DATE:

14 June 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4356

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 13th November 2001, Council Resolved that;

 

(a)  A report be prepared outlining a policy for café/restaurant operating hours in small shopping and residential areas

 

(b)  This report reflect a difference between the dining hours for outdoor and indoor dining areas, it could do this by stipulating outdoor dining areas and cease trading by 9.30pm Sunday to Thursday, with staff and patrons vacating the area by 11pm, and by 10.30pm Friday and Saturday with staff and patrons vacating the area by 12.30am. 

 

The above-mentioned recommendation is a result of increasing community concerns in relation to ‘operating hours’ for outdoor dining establishments particularly in locations close to residential properties. 

 

Council currently has a Development Control Plan (DCP) No. 20 ‘Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land’ in operation, adopted by Council on the 22 nd November 1994, and implemented as of 20th December 1994. (refer to Attachment B).  The DCP is a broad document, primarily addressing procedural matters and information which should be submitted with Development Applications.  Operating hours for outdoor dining, are not specifically detailed within the document with the exception of hours that alcohol consumption is permitted.  This report notes that this DCP is due for revision. 

 

Following Council’s resolution in January 2002, council’s standard conditions of consent were updated to reflect council’s resolutions.  This report outlines the recently updated hours considered as part of the assessment process for development applications and subsequent conditions of consent. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The operation hours of cafes, restaurants and footway dining has a potential impact on environmental amenity, particularly if located in or adjacent to residential premises.  It would therefore be appropriate for Council to have a policy or guide which identifies the overall planning and environmental objectives and which provides for improved consistency and regulatory control.

 

Establishments currently operate within Randwick City both as permissible uses in business zones and under existing use rights in residential zones.  Most concern relates to premises operating under existing use rights, within residential areas.  Proprietors often apply to Council to expand or modify footpath operations, despite the proposed use being prohibited in the zone.

 

Throughout the year, council has received numerous and varied complaints from residents regarding the operation of certain café/restaurant establishments within the Local Government Area in both business and residential zones.  Therefore, it would generally be appropriate to provide greater limitations in such areas to minimise potential nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Present Control of Hours of Operation

 

At present Council officers regulate indoor and outdoor dining operating hours by placing site-specific conditions of consent upon development approvals.  Following council’s resolution, a set of standard conditions of consent (refer to Attachment A), in relation to hours of operation, in order to more consistently regulate operating hours including outdoor dining were drafted and now form part of council’s conditions of consent.  Prior to applying the new conditions, however, each DA should still be assessed on its individual merits. Factors such as proximity to residential properties may warrant hours of operation that differ from the standard.

 

These new DA conditions recommend different hours, of operation depending on the land use zone and also the location of the business, as follows:

 

-     ‘Outdoor footway dining should be limited to a maximum of 11.00pm in General Business zones and 9.30pm in Local Business zones or adjacent to Residential zones, subject to an additional 30 minute period in which to finish consuming meals, drinks and coffees etc and vacate the premises. 

 

A note to the conditions states that: 

‘Further limitations may also be appropriate in areas within very close proximity of any residential premises.  Also, in potentially sensitive areas, it may be appropriate to limit any consent to a one-year trial period, to enable the impact upon the amenity of the locality to be monitored.’

 

It is difficult to standardise the hours of operation, even based on zoning, as each application has its own set of circumstances and warrants a significant degree of merit assessment and appropriate conditioning.  The new conditions provide an appropriate solution in setting a standard approach, while enabling some flexibility to address site-specific issues and requirements.

 

Operation hours of restaurants, cafes and take-away food premises, including outdoor dining areas, may also have an impact on the amenity of surrounding areas if located near licensed premises. This issue requires careful assessment at DA stage

 

Regulatory Control

Non-compliance with DA conditions (concerning hours of operation) pose certain environmental impacts on amenity particularly for nearby residents.  Noise emanating from the premises either as a direct result of patronage or operation of plant and equipment is a major concern, along with vehicular movement and sometimes, anti social behaviour.

 

Council’s ability to take enforcement action is reliant upon the DA conditions regarding the approved operational hours or otherwise by issuing a notice under noise control legislation, if applicable.

 

Many restaurants, cafes and take-away food premises in business zones, which obtained consent a number of years ago, do not contain any limitations on operational hours, which make regulatory action extremely difficult if at all possible.

 

It is considered important that the operational hours are specified on all development consents for restaurants, cafes, take-away food premises and outdoor dining.  It is equally important for the specified operational hours to be appropriate, reasonable, consistent and practicable to minimise loss of amenity and to facilitate the regulatory process.

 

Many restaurants and café’s also seek approval to serve liquor from the Licensing Court of NSW, which is generally preferable to a premises that permits patrons to bring their own alcohol, as licensed premises are subject to additional controls and penalties through the licensing Police and Licensing Court.

 

Other Issues

 

The current DCP has limited controls and guidelines on issues such as provision for customer amenities such as toilets, adequate additional parking and design issues eg. appropriate layout of outdoor eating areas, furniture and landscaping.  It would also be useful to provide more specific advice in relation to minimising impacts on the amenity of surrounding areas including noise from patrons and staff when leaving the premises.  Public liability in relation to pedestrian access and thoroughfare around outdoor tables and chairs is also a concern when inadequately regulated. Planning NSW has an Outdoor Eating Guidelines document that provides useful advice on addressing key issues on this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Due to emerging problems associated with the increase of footpath dining establishments and in the absence of a current Development Control Plan specifically addressing hours of operation of outdoor dining, it would be beneficial to revise the existing DCP (No.20).  The new DCP should also be expanded to address the range of issues relating to outdoor dining including operating hours, infrastructure, management, consumption of alcohol, noise, patron amenity, waste management and traffic with a focus on areas with a residential interface.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.   Endorse the updated hours of operation, developed as the basis for Council’s standard conditions of consent in relation to the operating hours of outdoor dining applications; and

 

2.   Resolve under Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 & Part 3, Division 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to prepare a new Outdoor Dining DCP, in accordance with Planning NSW Guidelines, including outdoor dining hours.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

A - Revised Conditions of Consent

B - DCP 20 (text only)

 

 

 

………………………………

 

………………………………

THOMAS KULCHAR

FIONA HERETIS

SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER

Student Planner

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING &

ENVIRONMENT


ATTACHMENT  A

 

651 – Hours of Operation

 

The hours of operation of the business are restricted to:-

 

Monday through to Saturday, inclusive from:…………….. to …………….

 

Sundays, from:……………to ……………

 

NB.          Matters for consideration (not for inclusion in the condition)

Careful consideration must be given to the proposed hours of operation of any business or use which is directly or indirectly likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residents and or result in a potential nuisance or increase in anti-social behaviour.

 

As a general guide, the following restrictions may be appropriate for the particular locality:-

 

General business zones:-  Up to 12.00 midnight on Monday to Saturday, inc. and up to 10.00pm on Sundays.

 

Local business zones:-  Up to 11.00pm on Monday to Saturday. Inc. and up to 10.00pm on Sundays.

 

However, commercial uses, which are located in, close proximity to residential premises and are to generate a potential nuisance, may necessitate reduced hours of operation from those detailed above (restaurants, footway dining etc.).  It may also be appropriate to limit the consent for a trial period to enable the impact upon the amenity of the locality to be monitored. 

 

652 – Hours of Operation – Restaurants, cafes, outdoor dining in potentially sensitive areas ie nearby residential premises)

 

The hours of operation of the business are restricted to:-

 

Monday through to Saturday inclusive, from:- ……………… to……………….

 

Sundays from:-……………….to……………….

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the premises within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

653 – The hours of operation of the footway outdoor dining are restricted to :-

 

Monday through to Saturday, inclusive from:………………… to ……………………

 

Sundays, from:……………………to ……………………

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours

 

NB.          Matters for consideration (not for inclusion in the condition)

As a general guide, outdoor footway dining should be limited to a maximum of 11.00pm in General Business zones and 9.30pm in Local Business zones or adjacent to Residential zones, subject to a 30 minute period in which to vacate the premises.

 

Further limitations may also be appropriate in areas within very close proximity of any residential premises.  Also, in potentially sensitive areas, it  may be appropriate to limit any consent to a one year  trial period to enable the impact upon the amenity of the locality  to be monitored.  







 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 36/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

34 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK  

 

 

DATE:

19 June, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1144/2001

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 1144/2001 for demolition of existing nursing home containing fifteen units and basement parking for Council’s 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 29 MAY 2002

2.  A4 CONFIGURATION PLANS   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KRISTY IDLE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

29 May, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1144/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing nursing home and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing fifteen units and basement parking

PROPERTY:

 34 Avoca Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 McNally Architects Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, as it is valued at $2.4 million.

 

The applicant seeks to demolish the existing building on the site, formerly operating as a nursing home, and construct a three storey multi unit housing development containing 15 residential units and associated basement level car parking.

 

The proposal complies with all relevant statutory controls applicable to the site with the exception of the maximum 0.9:1 FSR control to which the applicant has submitted an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1.  An assessment of the SEPP 1 objection indicates that compliance with the control is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The development application was notified to adjoining property owners and two submissions were received.  The applicant submitted amended plans to address Council’s concerns including incorporating a mix of one and two bedrooms units, and providing direct entrances through courtyards to the ground floor units.

 

The proposed development generally satisfies the relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the relevant preferred solutions or performance criteria of Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing.  It is considered that the proposal will be suitable for the site, have an appropriate design with a bulk and scale that will be acceptable within the streetscape, and have minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.   THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking permission to demolish the existing building on site and erect a three multi unit housing development containing the following levels:

 

Basement Level

§ Car parking for 19 vehicles with an access ramp from Stanley Street on the eastern property boundary.

§ Garbage storage area.

§ Individual storage bays attached to each parking space.

 

Ground Floor Level

§ 6 x 1 bedroom residential units and associated terraces

§ 1 disabled parking space located adjacent to the basement ramp on the Stanley Street frontage.

 

Level One

§ 6 x 1 bedroom residential units and balconies

 

Level Two

§ 3 x 2 bedroom residential units and balconies.

3.   THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is known as 34 Avoca Street, Randwick and is identified as Lot 1 in DP 320756.  The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Avoca Street and Stanley Street.  The site is regularly shaped with a frontage of 26.29 metres to Avoca Street, a frontage of 43.98 metres to Stanley Street, and a total site area of 1166.88m2

 

The site is relatively flat, with a slight cross fall to the south-western corner of the site.  At present, the site contains a two storey brick building that until March 2002 operated as the ‘Kia-Ora’ nursing home.

 

The area surrounding the subject site is predominantly residential.  Adjoining the site are residential flat buildings of two and three storeys in height. To the north of the site is the Emmanuel School, which is a heritage item and is listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

4.   SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A prelodgment meeting was held between the applicant and Council’s officers on 20 March 2001 prior to the lodgement of the application.

 

The application was lodged with Council on 3 December 2001 proposing eighteen x one bedroom units over three levels with basement parking. 

 

Following discussions with Council officers and recommendations arising from an urban design review of the application carried out independently of Council, the applicant submitted amended plans to Council on 17 April 2002 revising the proposal to contain twelve x one bedroom units at ground and first floor, and three x two bedroom units at the second floor.

 

Council received further revised plans relating to minor variations and additional detail on 22 May 2002.  These plans are the subject of this report.

 

5.   COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised on 18 December 2001, and the amended plans were renotified and advertised on 29 May 2002 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Submissions received in relation to notification of original application

 

Saridan Holdings Pty Ltd, PO Box 242, Rose Bay (owners of 38 Avoca Street)

§ Lack of direct light and sun to the ground floor units at No.38.

§ The proposed building has a motel type of elevation and appearance to Stanley Street.

 

G & K Plaoumpis, 93 Market Street, Randwick

§ Lack of parking in the area due to the school and other units.

§ Nursing homes are required for the aging population.

§ Old buildings need to be preserved.

 

5.2  Submissions received in relation to notification of amended plans

 

In response to the renotified plans, submissions were received from the same objectors raising identical issues to those raised in the initial submissions.

 

5.3  Support

 

No submissions in support of the application 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 objections in relation to building, construction and health matters are raised subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

6.2. Landscape Issues

 

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

 

(a)      Two Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) located along the Avoca Street frontage of the site.  Both of these trees are 10-15 metres tall, in good health and shown for retention on the plans.  As such these trees should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

(b)      One Eucalyptus cinerea (Blue Peppermint) located along the Stanley Street frontage of the site.  This tree is approximately 8-10 metres tall and in poor health.  Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

b.    Drainage Issues

 

Onsite detention is required for this application.

 

c.    Traffic/Parking Issues

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 18 residential units will be in the range of 72 to 90 vehicle movements per day. (Note that the amended plans which reduced the number of proposed units to 15 were not referred to Council’s engineers, however the number of vehicle movements is anticipated to be less and therefore will not have an additional impact).

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 9 vehicles per hour is considered moderate and no delays should be experienced in Avoca St or Stanley St as a result of this development.

 

The applicant must, at no cost to Council dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner for road widening purposes on the north/east corner of the site at the Avoca St and Stanley St intersection. There are to be no fences constructed within the splay corner area. The applicant has stated in the EIS Statement that the 3m x 3m dedication will require the removal of the Norfolk Island Pine, this is incorrect.

 

d.    Heritage Issues

 

Council’s heritage planner advises that there are no objections based on heritage grounds relating to the proposal.

 

e.    Issues Raised by External Bodies

 

BOA Architecture carried out an urban design review of the proposed building on behalf of Council.  In relation to the original submitted plans, the following recommendations were made:

 

1.     Redesign site layout to provide individual entries to ground floor flats.  This would imply the front gardens being part of the ground floor flats, which would be ideal for family accommodation and possible two or three bedroom accommodation.  Relocate the entry to the upper floor flats to the Avoca Street to give more activity along this frontage;

 

2.     Redesign the elevations and entry layouts to break up the massing and give more detail and meaning to the elevation;

 

3.     Suggest redesign of ground floor flat layouts to allow for a greater mix and size of flats to provide more variety of accommodation.

 

In response to these recommendations, the applicant submitted amended plans addressing the above concerns.  The amended plans were again referred to BOA Architecture, who advised that the recommendations have generally been followed, and the overall bulk of the building has been reduced from that originally proposed. 

 

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

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 – Min. Lot Size

N.A

1166.88 sqm

N.A

31 - Landscape Area

 

 

 

 

 

 

50% of site area

 

Landscaping above podiums – not to exceed 50% of required landscaped area

50.2%

 

 

43.7%

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

32 – FSR

0.9:1

0.929:1

No (SEEP No.1 objection submitted)

33 - Building Height

 

Overall max height: 12m

 

External wall height: 10m

 

12m

 

9.5m

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

N.A

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

N.A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Satisfactory

 

The proposed development is permissible in the Residential 2C zone with the consent of Council.  The proposal generally complies with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 with the exception of Clause 32 relating to floor space ratio, which is discussed below.

 

(b)   Draft SEPP 65

 

The development is subject to the provisions of Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.  The proposal has been subject to an urban design review carried out by an external consultant, and several amendments to the proposal have occurred.  It is now considered that the proposed building is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Draft SEPP 65.

 

7.1. Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan - Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred 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 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres from any side boundary.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length one section of wall 10 metres

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

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.

 

 

Complies.

 

The setback from the street frontage is consistent with the front setbacks of adjoining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

Setback varies from 5.85m to 7m on eastern side boundary, and 6.69m to western side boundary.

 

Maximum length of unarticulated wall is 4.5m

 

 

 

 
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 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall  section 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

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.

 

 

Subject site is a corner site, however the southern setback is considered the rear setback due to orientation of building to Stanley Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Setback varies from  3.5m to 7m.  Does not comply, however performance requirements will be satisfactory met.

 

 

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.

 

No devices proposed

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

The building is similar in height and scale to those in the locality.

 

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.

 

 

 

Complies

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Complies

 

 

P2        Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided

communal open space.

 

 

Complies.  Communal area around all setbacks, except the front setback where courtyard areas face in Stanley Street belong to ground floor units.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Each of the units provided with a balcony or courtyard accessed from main living areas.  These are sufficiently private

 

 

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.

 

Not applicable

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Each of the units has a balcony or courtyard that exceeds the minimum dimensions

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Complies.

 

The majority of windows and balconies overlook Avoca and Stanley Streets, with windows facing adjoining properties minimised and well separated.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

Complies

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 
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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Walls and floors will comply subject to conditions.

 

The development does not impact upon 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 Living areas of neighbours sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours have sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

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

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

S94 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Living areas and larger windows of all units are orientated to the north.

 

A NatHERS certificate has been submitted indicating that all units achieve 3.5 or 4 stars.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

The roof design is compatible for installation of solar collectors

 

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Plumbing and services are internal

 

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

 

An outdoor clothes drying area is provided.

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.

 

 

 

The balconies of the units overlook Stanley Street and habitable windows overlook Avoca Street.

 

Ground floor entries are visible from Stanley Street

 

Lighting can be complied with 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 are provided.

 

Parking is provided underground with an access ramp from the eastern corner of the site.

 

A parking space for people with a disability is provided at street level on Stanley Street.

 

Storage areas suitable for bicycle storage is provided within the basement.

 

 

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
dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

16 resident spaces and 4 visitor parking spaces proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

Complies

 

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.

Complies

 

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not applicable

 

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.

Complies

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Complies – mix of face brick, rendered concrete and opaque glass

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

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

Complies

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 .

Complies

 

Storage is provided for each unit within the basement and in units.

 

 

 

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.

Complies.

 

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.

 

Unit 12 specifically designed to accommodated special access needs, including level access to parking space.

 

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

 

Complies

 

 

 

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

 

 

Not required

 

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.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of the building and is not obtrusive.

 

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

 

Complies.

 

8.   ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Randwick LEP 1998

 

8.1.1.     Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposed development does not comply with Clause 32 of the Randwick LEP 1998, which requires that the maximum floor space ratio for development in the Residential 2C zone be 0.9:1.  The proposal will exceed the maximum permissible floor space ratio having a FSR of 0.929:1.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1) for Council to consider a variation from the standard.  The stated objective of the floor space ratio standard is to establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided.  This will be help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

In the SEPP 1 objection, the applicant argues that strict compliance with FSR control is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

a)   The reduction in the FSR to 0.9:1 spread over the three floors of the building visible above the ground level would make no discernable difference to the size, bulk and scale of the building

 

b)   The building would suffer by the reduction in the FSR in that dimensions of living spaces would be reduced and the long term benefits to the residents would suffer.  The extra FSR has not produced any extra units on the site but rather more generous sized units.

 

c)   All setbacks are generous when compared to all recent developments in the area and all other development standards of the LEP and DCP have been met.

 

d)   The development vastly improves the environment of both adjoining existing properties in all respects of overshadowing, access to light, sunshine and views as well as improving the street scape and is not considered over development of the site.

 

In evaluating the above mentioned points of objection, Council must refer to the underlying objectives of the development standard, and in doing so, the following assessment is made:

 

1.     The proposed increase in floor area is not excessive, and is not expected to give rise to detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views.  The proposal includes sufficient setbacks to the adjoining properties, which mitigates any impact on the privacy of adjoining properties and marginally improves sunlight penetration to adjoining properties.

 

2.     The proposal is a three storey building that has a similar bulk, height and scale to other developments in the vicinity.  The proposal will not appear as an overdevelopment of the site when viewed from the street within the context of this locality.

 

In view of the above, the SEPP 1 objection to the FSR standard is well founded and it would be unnecessary and unreasonable to require strict compliance in the circumstances.

 

8.2        Amenity Impacts

 

8.2.1  Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that on the winter solstice the proposed development will cast shadow upon the adjoining building to the south, a three storey residential flat building at No.38 Avoca Street.  In particular, the ground floor units of this building will remain in shadow for the majority of the day.  It is noted however, that this building is currently overshadowed by both the existing building on the subject site and the residential flat building to the west of the subject site at No.31 Stanley Street. 

 

The performance requirement for this control is that new development is not to further reduce the amount of sunlight to adjoining properties where overshadowing presently exists.  As the proposed building will be further setback from the southern property boundary than the present building on the subject site, there will not be additional overshadowing as a result of the proposed building than those shadows cast presently by the existing building.

 

The overshadowing generated by the development is considered reasonable given that the development complies with the height controls, and the proposed building will increase the existing setbacks to the adjoining properties.

 

8.2.2    Parking and Access

 

Nineteen vehicle parking spaces are provided within the basement level, with a nominated disabled parking space located at street level on the Stanley Street frontage.  The number of parking spaces complies with the required amount, and the dimensions and gradients within the basement parking comply with Council’s requirements. 

 

8.2.3    Privacy and Overlooking

 

The main living areas of the proposed units are orientated towards the north, with living/dining rooms and balconies of the units overlooking Stanley Street.  There will be no loss of privacy to adjoining properties as a result of the balconies of the proposed building.

 

Several windows to the bedrooms of the proposed units and stairwells at each level of the proposed building are located on the southern façade of the building, which will face the adjoining property at No.38 Avoca Street.  These windows are not large in size, and the separation between the windows and the property boundary varies from 4.5m to the stair well windows, to 7.0m to the bedroom windows.  The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which indicates that the setback between No.34 and No.38 Avoca Street will be landscaped, which combined with the setback will achieve satisfactory privacy to the adjoining property.

 

8.2.4    Building Design, Materials and Appearances

 

Sufficient articulation to the façade of the proposed building is achieved through a combination of external finishes and material, balconies, window openings and projecting bay windows.  The external walls of the proposed building are facebrick to be consistent with the predominant style of the locality, with rendered brick columns supporting the balconies and planter boxes.  Opaque glass and metal balustrading to the balconies are proposed.

 

An independent urban design review of the proposal was carried out on behalf of Council.  Following a number of recommendations and subsequent amendments to the proposed building, the overall bulk and visual impact has been reduced through changes to the building design and appearance.  The upper level balconies on the northern façade have been differentiated from the balconies on the lower two levels to acknowledge that the upper floor contains double width two bedroom units.  The eastern and western elevations have been articulated by a vertical column of projecting bay windows to the proposed bedrooms, which extend slightly above the roofline.  The southern elevation has been broken in to several distinct elements, achieved by the projecting stair towers, which extend slightly above the roofline, consistent with the bay window elements on the eastern and western façade.

 

It is considered that the building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms, and the design elements of the building minimises the impact of the building bulk on nearby buildings and the streetscape.

 

8.2.5    Building Setbacks

 

Whilst the subject site is a corner lot, the proposed building is orientated towards Stanley Street, and therefore the northern setback is considered the front setback, the southern setback is considered the rear setback, and the eastern and western setbacks are considered the side setbacks.

 

The external walls of the proposed building are setback 8.29m from the front property boundary, with the edge of the balconies on the northern elevation setback 5.29m from the front property boundary.  This setback is consistent with that of the adjoining flat building to the west.  The front boundary fence of the subject site is proposed to be a solid rendered brick fence 800mm in size, with an opening to a landscaped courtyard to the ground floor units.

 

The proposed building is to be setback 4.5m to 7.0m from the rear property boundary.  This does not comply with the preferred solution which requires an average 8m setback and no part of the building to be closer than 6m from the rear property boundary.  However it is considered that the proposed building achieves the performance requirements of the rear boundary setback and that a variation to this control is acceptable.  The proposed building is built across the site, orientated to front Stanley Street, rather than down the length of the site.  There is sufficient area for landscaping, communal recreational facilities and outdoor clothes drying space provided in the rear setback area.  As discussed above, privacy of the adjoining building to the rear is not unreasonably affected, and the increased setback of the proposed building to that of the existing building will improve the amount of solar access to the adjoining property.  Having regard to these factors, it is considered that the performance objectives are met and the proposed rear setback is satisfactory.

 

The setback to the western side property boundary is 6.69m, and the setback to the eastern side property boundary is 7.0m.  These distances comply with the preferred solution, and the side setback area is satisfactorily landscaped to maintain streetscape amenity and adequate separation between buildings.

 

8.3       Additional issues raised in the submissions

 

The objectors at 93 Market Street stated in their objection that the community has a growing ageing population and nursing homes are required.  The nursing home building at the subject site is an older building, which recently ceased operation as a nursing home.  There is no statutory requirement for the retention of private nursing homes as there is for low income housing, and as such Council is unable to prevent the loss of such buildings within the scope to the development assessment process.

 

The objectors also stated that there is need to preserve old buildings in the community as a high number of old buildings are being demolished and replaced with new buildings.  The subject building is not listed as a heritage item, and nor is it located within a heritage conservation area.  Council’s heritage planner has raised no objections to the proposed demolition of the building and its impact upon the neighbouring heritage item.

 

8.4       Site Suitability

 

The subject site is located within the 2C residential zone, and is surrounded by other multi-storey residential flat buildings.  The proposal is to replace an existing building with a modern multi unit housing building that will increase building setbacks and improve landscaping and parking on the site.  The proposed development will be consistent with the residential nature of the area, and it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

9.   CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the non compliance with the maximum FSR of the development is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and draft State Environmental Planning Policy No.65.  The assessment of the application indicates that the proposed development generally satisfies the relevant assessment criteria.  Submissions received objecting to the proposal have been addressed within the body of this report.  It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site given the objectives of the zoning, compliance with the relevant standards and it is not expected that the proposed building will have a significant impact on surrounding properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Urban Affairs and Planning to vary the provisions of Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Demolition of existing nursing home and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing fifteen units and basement parking under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and, 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. 1144/01 for Demolition of existing nursing home and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing fifteen units and basement parking at 34 Avoca Street, Randwick.

 

B.       THAT Council's Manager Development Assessment under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, grant development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1144/01 for Demolition of existing nursing home and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing fifteen units and basement parking at 34 Avoca 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 Planning and Environment:

 

1.         Details of External Colours, Material and Textures

 

A schedule, sample board and elevation drawings indicating the proposed colours, materials and textures of the external surfaces of the proposed building and front fencing The colours, materials and textures are to be compatible with the surrounding area, incorporating natural, subdued colours and materials which minimise solar glare and reflectivity.

.

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Environment, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A101 C, A102 C, A 103 B, A 301 C, dated 27/9/01, 2/10/01, 10/4/02, 3/10/01 respectively and received by Council on 22 May 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:

 

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

 

2.         The external colours, materials and finishes of the proposed development shall be in accordance with the details and plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Environment pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions.

 

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

 

4.         The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

5.         Vehicular access to the basement car park shall be readily accessible to visitors at all times.  Where a security gate is provided a suitable intercom shall be installed adjacent to the vehicular entrance together with appropriate signage to provide access to visitor spaces.

 

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

 

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

 

8.         Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

9.         A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

10.       Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the written consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon the adjoining premises.

 

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:

 

11.       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 condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

12.       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                                    $19721.64

b)   for the provision or improvement of community facilities                          $8720.16

c)   Administration fee                                                                                    $425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the management of waste from the development:

 

13.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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:

 

16.       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.

 

17.       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 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:

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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.

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

24.       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. 

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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”.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

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

 

40.       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.

 

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

 

41.       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)         $2000.00         -           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.

 

42.       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)         $1500.00         -           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:

 

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

 

a)   Remove the existing vehicular crossing and to reconstruct a new heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback opposite the vehicular entrance point in Stanley Street

 

b)   Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full Stanley Street site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit point.

 

c)   Carry out a full depth, 1.50 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

d)   Reconstruct a concrete footpath along the full site frontage of both Avoca St & Stanley St.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       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.

 

46.       The internal driveway must be 5.00 metres wide for the first 5 metres inside the property, a minimum 3.5 metres wide at all other points and located at least 0.50 metres clear of the side boundary.

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

49.       The applicant must, at no cost to Council dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner for road widening purposes on the north/east corner of the site at the Avoca St and Stanley St intersection. There are to be no fences constructed within the splay corner area.

 

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

 

50.       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:

 

Avoca St Frontage - match the back of the existing footpath levels along the full site frontage.

 

Stanley St Frontage - 150mm 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.

 

51.       The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb/footpath 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.

 

52.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,159.00 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:

 

53.       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.

 

54.       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.

 

55.       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 a electricity substation will be required for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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.

 

58.       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.

 

59.       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.

 

60.       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.

 

61.       The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

62.       The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

63.       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).

 

64.       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.

 

65.       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)

 

66.       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.

 

67.       A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

68.     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.

 

69.       One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bay 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 bay 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 bay.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       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).

 

72.       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:

 

73.       The garbage storage area/washout area is 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.

 

74.       The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 18 x 240 litre bins (9 garbage bins & 9 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.

 

75.       Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate 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 following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

76.       The landscaped areas shown on the landscape plan, dwg no. 01107 dated November 2001 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 tree/s 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.

 

77.       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.

 

78.       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.

 

79.       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.

 

80.       In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers or similar shall be used throughout the driveway areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, an Accredited Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

81.       Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation  shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

82.       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

 

83.     The applicant shall submit payment of $290.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 2 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.

 

84.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of  1 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement tree (not palm) within the site. The species selected shall be one that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)     One Eucalyptus cinerea (Blue Peppermint) located along the Stanley Street frontage of the site.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

85.       In order to ensure the retention of the two Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) located along the Avoca Street frontage 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 detention tanks, services, stormwater infiltration systems, basement carparks, pipes, cutting or battering of the existing soil profile, or any excavations within a radius of 4 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

c.   The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the tree/s using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1.5 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 footings, structures, retaining walls, paving etc within 4 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 or cheque of $11,000.00 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

 

2

 

Araucaria heterophylla

(Norfolk Island Pines)

 

$11,000.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$11,000.00

 

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.

 

86.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $18,000.00 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.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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 E2             -           Smoke Hazard Management

            b)         Part E4             -           Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

c)         Part F4             -           Light and ventilation

            d)         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.

 

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 Attachments

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KRISTY IDLE

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 






MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor Procopiadis - Stables in Properties within the City. (98/S/2274)

 

That Council officers investigate and identify all properties within the City of Randwick which contain stables. This investigation is to establish as to whether they are being used as commercial enterprises and, if so, being rated accordingly as either business or mixed development.

 

11.2          By Councillor Matson – Failure by Defence Department to advise residents of date of Demolition of Asbestos Sheds. (P/014113 xr 98/S/1648)

 

That Council fax an urgent letter to the appropriate Minister handling Defence matters informing him that it regards as unacceptable the failure by his Department’s consultants to publicly commit to a schedule of specific days on which asbestos demolition works will occur on the surplus Bundock Street site.

 

11.3      By Councillor Matson – Risk Assessment Report on Industrial Hazards. (98/S/0797)

 

That a report be brought back to the next Council meeting detailing whether Council was advised that a 1983 Risk Assessment Report by the State Government concluded that a primary and a secondary risk area of industrial hazards existed in Botany and Randwick.

 

11.4          By Councillor Matson – Response to CMFEU Request for tighter Council approach to Asbestos Cement. (98/S/1648)

 

That Council notes the health risks to building workers and surrounding residents from demolition or renovation of structures containing asbestos products and resolves that:

1.         In respect of the demolition of structures that contain or are likely to contain Asbestos products:

 

(a)        Upon granting consent to demolish a building or structure that contains Asbestos, Council is to notify in writing the residents adjoining the demolition site of the following:

 

The conditions of Development Consent;

·                    Council’s telephone number

·                    The Ordinance Inspector’s phone number for after hours contact;

·                    The telephone number of the WorkCover Construction Team (02) 9370 5099

·                    The name and phone number of the contractor responsible for the demolition

A copy of WorkCover’s “Short Guide to Working with Asbestos Cement” is to be sent with the Council notification to adjoining residents.

 

(b)        The following Conditions of Development Consent are to be imposed:

i.                     Five (5) working days (i.e. Monday to Friday with the exclusion of Public Holidays) notice in writing is to be given to Council for inspection prior to the commencement of any such works.

ii.                   On the first day of demolition, work is not to commence until the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) has inspected the site. Should the building to be demolished be found to be wholly or partly clad with asbestos cement, approval to commence demolition will not be given until the PCA is satisfied that all measures are in place so as to comply with WorkCover’s “Short Guide to Working with Asbestos Cement”, a copy of which accompanies the Development Consent.

iii.                  All asbestos laden waste, including flat, corrugated or profiled asbestos cement sheets must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). NOTE: The person responsible for disposing of the above asbestos waste is to telephone the EPA on (02) 9325 5709 to determine the location of a tip licensed to receive asbestos. Upon completion of tipping operations the applicant must lodge with Council, all receipts issued by the receiving tip as evidence of proper disposal.

iv.         Demolition works are restricted to Monday to Friday between the hours of 7am to 6pm. No demolition works are to be undertaken on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.

v.                   The applicant is to notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition. Such notification is to be a clearly written note on note pad size paper giving the date demolition will commence and be placed in the letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any) either side and immediately at the rear of the demolition site.

vi.                 The applicant agrees to an audit of the demolition work by an OH&S consultant nominated by Council. If the developer is in default of OH&S requirements, the developer will pay for the audit and stop work. If the contractor does not accept the opinion of the audit company, work will stop until determined by WorkCover.

vii.                The developer will display agreed asbestos/demolition signage prior to and during demolition.

viii.       A portaloo with appropriate washing facilities will be required on site prior to commencement of demolition.

2.    In respect of the Renovation or Brick Veneering or Cladding of Structures Containing Asbestos, the following development consent conditions are to be imposed:

Conditions of Development Consent

(a)                All asbestos cement sheeting must be removed by contractors with an appropriate license issued by WorkCover and who are familiar with asbestos removal prior to the commencement of:

i.                     Brick veneering or re-cladding of any building where the existing walls to be covered are currently clad with asbestos cement; OR

ii.                   Construction work where new work abuts existing asbestos cement sheeting and/or where parts of the existing building clad with asbestos cement sheeting are to be altered or demolished.

(b)               All asbestos laden waste, including flat, corrugated or profiled asbestos cement sheets must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

(c)        The developer agrees to an audit of the demolition work by an OH&S consultant nominated by Council. If the developer is in default of OH&S requirements, the developer will pay for the audit and stop work. If the contractor does not accept the opinion of the audit company, work will stop until determined by WorkCover.

(d)        The developer will display agreed asbestos/demolition signage prior to and during demolition.

(e)                A portaloo with appropriate washing facilities will be required on site prior to commencement of demolition.

NOTE: The person responsible for disposing of the above asbestos waste is to telephone the EPA on (02) 9325 5709 to determine the location of a tip licensed’ to receive asbestos. Upon completion of tipping operations, the applicant shall lodge with Council all receipts issued by the receiving tip as evidence of proper disposal.