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

 

 

2nd July, 2002

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 9TH JULY 2002 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  His Worship, the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan, Crs Andrews (Deputy Chairperson), Backes, Bastic, Daley (Chairperson), Greenwood, Matson, Matthews, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Schick, Seng, Tracey, White, Whitehead.

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE ORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2000, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 11 TH JUNE, 2002.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                        

13 AND 15 ELLEN STREET, RANDWICK.

2

5.2                        

19 LEE STREET, RANDWICK.

24

5.3                        

74 MARINE PDE MAROUBRA.

43

 

6          Miscellaneous

 

6.1

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT’S REPORT 40/2002 -

MAROUBRA JUNCTION TOWN CENTRE - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AND DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AMENDMENT.  (An under separate cover attachment is to be circularised to Councillors prior to the Meeting.)

57

 

7           General Business

 

8          Motions Pursuant To Notice

 

8.1                        

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Greenwood, Matson and Whitehead – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 25th July, 2002 – Item 6.3 - 450-458 Anzac Pde, Kingsford.

66

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

24 June, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0044/2002 and D/0045/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82 A Review of Determination for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including new car port and front fencing, and the replacement of an existing car port (No.13 Ellen Street) with a new garage.

PROPERTY:

13 and 15 Ellen Street, Randwick

WARD:

Central Ward

APPLICANT:

H Portokalli

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The applications have been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Freda Backes, Murray Matson, Bruce Notley-Smith.

 

The applications involve the proposed construction of carports, fencing and a portico entry to the front of the pair of semi detached dwellings on the properties. The replacement of an existing carport with a new garage to the southern side of the dwelling at No.13 Ellen Street is also proposed. 

 

The applications were refused under delegated authority in March 2002 and the applicant has requested a review of the determinations to refuse the applications.

 

No objections were received to the original applications during their notification.

 

The main issues regarding the proposal are considered to be the impact of the proposed carports and front fencing on the visual amenity and open form and character of the streetscape. 

 

It is recommended that Council confirm the previous decision to refuse the applications.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant has requested a review of determination of the development applications under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

Approval is sought to construct single-car carports to the front of each of the existing semi detached dwellings on Nos.13 and 15 Ellen Street.  New 1.8m high fencing (and vehicular and pedestrian entry gates) is also proposed to the front and side boundary returns of the dwellings. The proposed front fencing is to be of masonry construction with timber slat infill. The addition of a canopy of masonry construction to the front entry areas of the dwellings is also proposed. The proposed carports, entry canopies and front fencing are to be symmetrical in design and of the same materials and external finishes.  

 

The proposal for No.13 Ellen Street also involves the replacement of an existing car port structure adjoining the south-western corner of the dwelling with a longer fully enclosed brick garage structure with panel lift door.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITES AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject properties are located on the western side of Ellen Street. They contain a pair of single, storey semi detached dwellings, set back approximately 2.4m from their outer side boundaries. Bundock Lane forms the northern side boundary to the property No.15 Ellen Street.

 

The locality is low-scale residential in nature and contains a mix of free standing and semi detached dwellings, some with first floor additions and car parking spaces and car ports to the fronts of dwellings.

 

4.         HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS:

 

The subject applications were refused under delegated authority on 8 March 2002 for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and attached Dual Occupancies. The siting of the carport structure to the front of the dwelling, the height of the fence and the bulk and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate, and will have an adverse impact upon the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed development does not integrate well with the established setback and dwelling design and will detrimentally impact the environmental amenity of the area.

 

3.         The proposal would set an undesirable precedent in this section of Ellen Street and is not in the public interest.

 

5.         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:

 

5.1       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

5.1.1    Landscape Issues

 

No.13 Ellen Street:

 

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

    No.15 Ellen Street:

 

There are two Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms) that may be affected by the proposed works. Both palms are located within the front yard of the site close to the proposed carport. These trees are approximately 8-9 metres tall, in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. In order for the construction of the carport to take place, the palm closest to the front property boundary will need to be removed. Given that this is not a significant specimen within the City of Randwick, permission should be granted for its removal, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site. The other palm should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

6.         STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent.  Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

A review can only be made on the application as determined.  The application cannot be altered or amended as part of the review process.

 

7.         ZONING AND STATUTORY ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council's consent.  The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following controls and is consistent with the provisions of these controls: -

 

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended

 

8.         NOTIFICATION

 

The owners and occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the original development applications on 23 January 2002. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received in respect of either application. 

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS:

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment.

 

The applications propose the construction of the carports to the front of the pair of semis, sited up to the side boundaries and 1m from the street alignment. The proposed dimensions of the carports are 3.2m x 5.2m each. The widths of the proposed carports are 3.2m each, occupying 41% of their site frontages.

 

The proposed garage on the southern side of the dwelling at No.13 Ellen Street is set back in line with the front wall of the dwelling and has an internal width of approximately 2.3m and depth 6.8m. The internal width of the garage does not comply with the minimum dimension of

 

Front Fences

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed front fencing will be 1.8m in height comprising rendered brick piers and base with fixed open timber slat infill between the piers and to the driveway and pedestrian gate entries. The fencing is to be constructed along both the front and side boundary returns of the properties, forward of the front alignment of the pair of semis.

 

10.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

10.1     Reasons for review

 

The applicant and owner of the property No.13 Ellen Street, Mr H Portokalli, has provided the following reasons for requesting the review:

 

1.         Collaboration between the two owners of the properties in the design and appearance of the proposed development will produce a uniform appearance of the properties as a whole. At present, they have different finishes and look untidy.

2.         The front facades and fences in this section of Ellen Street have no consistency, as they are all very different.

3.         There has been overwhelming neighbour support to these applications, of which there are written testimonials included (on file).

4.         There were no objections received by Council.

5.         The case is unique due to the width of our sites and the height of the front facades of the semis.

6.         The proposed rendered finish of the fences and carports is a long term structure rather than lattice or wooden fences which can deteriorate and look untidy.

7.         Currently there is a lack of security and privacy for both semis due to the lack of adequate fencing and no gates. 15 Ellen Street has Bundock Lane running down its length and is very exposed to passers by.

8.         On 16 March 2002 at about 11.30pm the police were called out as there was a group of intoxicated youths urinating on our front fences and lawns (this is one example of many).

9.         We constantly find rubbish and dog faeces in our front yards as there are no gates therefore any persons or animals can wander in.

10.       Our vehicles are currently exposed to the elements and are easily accessible to vandals and thieves. This applies particularly to my trade van, which I rely on for my business.

11.       With the future development of the Defence Site there will be an increase of residents, car movements and pedestrians in Ellen Street, hence the need for adequate fencing and secure off street parking. 

 

The applicant’s architect has also provided the following reasons for requesting the review: -

 

1.         The refusal appears to be a blanket refusal, covering elements that comply with the DCP. The fence design proposed is within the DCP requirements.

2.         There is considerable neighbour support for the proposal.

3.         The existing carport to No.13 could be re-modelled with minimal impact to the streetscape yet this was refused.

4.         The proposed carports should be assessed on their merits, in relation to their profile above the proposed fence and their setback from the street. The typical pattern of a carport extending to the front boundary is avoided in this case.

5.         Further to the above, the proposed carports do not encroach significantly onto the front facades of the semis, due to the height of the facades and existing side setbacks.

6.         The three dimensional impact of the proposal on the streetscape, as represented by the photomontage impression (on file), was exhibited to adjoining neighbours in the street (8 properties in total). The response was overwhelmingly positive with all agreeing that the proposal would represent an improvement to the existing situation. It may be appropriate to re-assess what is in the public interest in this case.

7.         The proposal would not set an undesirable precedent on this section of Ellen Street. The undesirable precedents already exist and this proposal seeks to improve upon them and not perpetuate them. This was discussed at length in the Statement of Environmental Effects, of which photographic examples are included (on file).

 

10.2     Assessment   

 

The streetscape in Ellen Street is of a predominantly open form and character with low height picket and brick fencing predominating in the street with some higher open brick and metal infill palisade type fence forms to 1.8m in height north of Bundock Lane.

 

There are only a few examples of carports constructed on or in close proximity to the street alignments of properties in Ellen Street. These occur on the properties Nos. 2, 4 and 14 Ellen Street, which are located on the opposite side of the street. These structures are unrepresentative of, and are considered to detract from, the predominant open form and character of the streetscape in Ellen Street. Furthermore, these carport structures were approved and constructed well prior to the introduction of Randwick DCP- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies under which the subject applications must now be assessed.

 

Some examples of front fencing up to 1.8m in height may be found to the north of Bundock Lane on both sides of Ellen Street. However, they are of a generally open palisade type with the exception of the existing 1.8m high brick fencing to the front of the pair of semis at Nos.2 and 4 Ellen Street on the opposite side of the street.

 

The streetscape north of Bundock Lane on the western side of Ellen Street comprises freestanding dwelling houses with wide frontages and palisade type front fencing up to 1.8m in height. The streetscape south of Bundock Lane comprises pairs of semi-detached dwellings that maintain a consistent setback from the street frontage and have front fencing of a consistently low type.

 

It is considered that the proposed height and design of the fencing will detract from the predominantly open form and character of the streetscape in Ellen Street as a whole, but especially in relation to the streetscape south of Bundock Lane in which the properties form a part. It is also considered that the proposed front fencing and car port structures will create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals forward of the building line of dwellings in Ellen Street. The proposed entry canopy and blade wall structures to the front entries of the dwellings are integrated with the design of the proposed carports and front fencing and for this reason are not supported.   

 

The proposed garage on the southern side of No.13 Ellen Street is also integrated into the design of the other proposed works and the internal width of the garage does not comply with the minimum dimensions of Council’s DCP-Parking. Further, entry to and alighting from a vehicle parked within the garage would be difficult and the existing carport is more advantageous in this regard.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed front fencing and car port structures do not meet the relevant objectives, performance requirements or the preferred solutions of Randwick DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to the siting and design of such structures, and will detract from the predominantly open form and character of the streetscape in Ellen Street.     

 

The internal width of the proposed garage does not comply with the minimum dimensions of DCP-Parking and is inadequate for entry to and alighting from a vehicle parked within the garage.

 

It is recommended that Council confirm the previous decision to refuse the applications.

 

12.       RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That the original determinations of Development Application Nos 44/2002 and 45/2002 for Nos.13 and 15 Ellen Street Randwick dated 8 March 2002 be confirmed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

-A4 configurations

-Delegated Reports dated 7 March 2002 recommending refusal of the  original development applications.     

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 






                                             DELEGATED REPORT

         Report of the Director of Planning –7 March 2002

 

 

PROPERTY:                  13 Ellen St,      WARD:                            Central

 

FILE REF:                       DA 44/2002          

 

APPLICANT: Harry Portokalli

 

OWNER:                          Mr H & F Portokalli

 

PROPOSAL:                    Alterations and additions to the existing semidetached dwelling house including carport to side and front new fencing and landscaping.

 

VALUE OF WORK:        $ 24 000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:        1a & 10a

 

DATE SUBMITTED:      16 January 2001

 

ADVERTISING:             Clause 23 notification

 

AUTHOR:                        Idaly Yap

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of free standing and semi detached dwellings, some of the dwellings have been modified in some form, which includes first floor additions.

 

The subject premises is on the western side of Ellen Street and contains a single storey dwelling.

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

The history matters of relevance to this premises are approval for :-

 

*BZ 281/82     Carports granted on 1/1/78

*BZ193/85      Additions to semidetached on 1/1/85

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The applicant seek a proposal to construct an open carport at the front of the property, which is to be sited 1.5m from the front boundary. A 1.8m high fence is also proposed to the front and the side of the premises consisting of brick and open slat. The alterations proposed to is a new entry porch for the existing semi detached dwelling. It is to be noted that the a similar proposal is proposed to the adjoining semi-pair dwelling at no 15 Ellen Street, Randwick (DA 45/2002), which is also subject to Council’s approval.

 

2.         ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and, the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

3.         POLICY CONTROLS:

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

The proposal details the erection of a new carport to the front of the dwelling, sited 1m from the street alignment. The proposed dimensions are 3.2m x 5.2m. The width of the proposed carport  is 3.2m (41%)and does not satisfies the 35% width of the site requirement. It is not considered that the proposed carport satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that it will be visually obtrusive and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and, being sited so close to the front boundary will have an adverse impact upon the existing streetscape, which in this distinct section of Ellen Street is relatively open.

 

The site inspection revealed that there are other examples of structures sited to the front of the dwelling at no 2,4,14 and 21 Ellen Street. Perusal of Council’s records has revealed the following regarding the carports.

 

2 Ellen Street                     - single carport approved 621/87

4 Ellen Street                     -single carport approved 126/63

 

14 Ellen Street                   -single carport approved 556/85

 

21 Ellen Street                   -double carport approved 1142/79

 

The example of these structures is of a relatively light weight in construction, and the majority of  properties along Ellen Street have garages which are sited behind the building line. Given that these existing structures were approved prior the adoption of the current DCP, these structures could not be considered as setting a precedent to support favourable consideration of this proposal. Approval of this application will adversely impact upon the streetscape or set an undesirable precedent for further inappropriate car parking along this relatively open section of Ellen Street.

 

It is to be noted that an approval has been granted for a carport in 1982, which is located behind the building alignment on this property. This carport had since been erected and the provision for car parking space is currently available on site.

 

6.         FENCES:

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed fence will be 1.8m in height and is designed with the upper portion 50% open. The fence is proposed at the front boundary and also along the Bundock Lane boundary. The brickwork will be rendered and painted and open treated timber slats are proposed with pigmented timber finishes.

 

The site inspection revealed that there are some high fences particularly along the north-eastern section of Ellen street where the majority are designed with segments between the piers detailed in tubular steel/ wrought iron and remain 2/3 rds open. There is one fence within this section of the streetscape where a solid 1.8m front fence has been constructed. However, the south-eastern section of Ellen street comprises of approximately 0.9m open picket fences or low (0.3-0.6m) solid brick fences. The proposed fence is considered to be excessive in height and does not integrate well with the streetscape. It will dominate and add to the bulk of the proposed carport creating it the appearance of a garage. The proposal is incompatible with the open section of Ellen Street and will set an undesirable precedent.

7.         REFERRALS:

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment, 11 conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

8.         NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

            The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 23 January 2002.  As a result of this notification, no submission was received.

 

9.         SECTION 79C 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.

 

10.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the assessment criteria or the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and have an adverse impact upon the existing streetscape. The new carport will be out of keeping with the other semi detached dwellings and set an undesirable precedent in a section of Ellen street. The proposal therefore cannot be supported.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and therefore cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

12.       RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council's Team Leader refuse under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.45/02 for permission  for alterations and additions to the existing semidetached dwelling house including carport to side and front new fencing and landscaping at 15 Ellen Street, Randwick for the following reasons:- 

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and attached Dual Occupancies. The siting of the carport structure to the front of the dwelling, the height of the fence and the bulk and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate, and will have an adverse impact upon the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed development does not integrate well with the established setback and dwelling design and will detrimentally impact the environmental amenity of the area.

 

3.         The proposal would set an undesirable precedent in this section of Ellen Street and is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

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

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE: .........................................                              

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be refused.

 

I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 22 August 2000, to determine this application.

 

 

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

 

TEAM LEADER

 

DATE:....................................

 

G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE\DEVE2002\Ellen13B#.doc

 

 


 

 

                                             DELEGATED REPORT

         Report of the Director of Planning –7 March 2002

 

 

PROPERTY:                  15 Ellen St, Randwick  WARD:                            Central

 

FILE REF:                       DA 45/2002          

 

APPLICANT: Harry Portokalli

 

OWNER:                          Mr G. Kyriakopoulos

 

PROPOSAL:                    Alterations and additions to the existing semidetached dwelling house including carport to side and front new fencing and landscaping.

 

VALUE OF WORK:        $ 21 000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:        1a & 10a

 

DATE SUBMITTED:      16 January 2001

 

ADVERTISING:             Clause 23 notification

 

AUTHOR:                        Idaly Yap

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of free standing and semi detached dwellings, some of the dwellings have been modified in some form, which includes first floor additions.

 

The subject premises is on the western side of Ellen Street and contains a single storey dwelling.

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

No development history for the subject site.

 

4.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The applicant seek a proposal to construct an open carport at the front of the property, which is to be sited 1.5m from the front boundary. A 1.8m high fence is also proposed to the front and the side of the premises consisting of brick and open slat. The alterations proposed is a new entry porch for the existing semi detached dwelling. It is to be noted that the a similar proposal is proposed to the adjoining semi-pair dwelling at no 13 Ellen Street, Randwick (DA 44/2002), which is also subject to Council’s approval.

 

5.         ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and, the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

6.         POLICY CONTROLS:

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

The proposal details the erection of a new carport to the front of the dwelling, sited 1m from the street alignment. The proposed dimensions are 3.2m x 5.2m. The width of the proposed carport  is 3.2m (41%) and does not satisfies the 35% width of the site requirement. It is not considered that the proposed garage satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in  that it will be visually obtrusive and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and, being sited so close to the front boundary will have an adverse impact upon the existing streetscape, which in this distinct section of Ellen Street is relatively open.

 

The site inspection revealed that there are other examples of structures sited to the front of the dwelling at no 2,4,14 and 21 Ellen Street. Perusal of Council’s records has revealed the following regarding the carports.

2 Ellen Street                     - single carport approved 621/87

4 Ellen Street                     -single carport approved 126/63

 

14 Ellen Street                   -single carport approved 556/85

 

21 Ellen Street                   -double carport approved 1142/79

 

The example of these structures is of a relatively light weight construction, and the majority of  properties along Ellen Street have garages which are sited behind the building line. Given that these existing structures were approved prior the adoption of the current DCP, these structures could not be considered as setting a precedent to support favourable consideration of this proposal. Approval of this application will adversely impact upon the streetscape or set a precedent for further inappropriate car parking along this relatively open section of Ellen Street.

 

11.       FENCES:

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed fence will be 1.8m in height and is designed with the upper portion 50% open. The fence is proposed at the front boundary and also along the Bundock Lane boundary. The brickwork will be rendered and painted and open treated timber slats are proposed with pigmented timber finishes.

 

The site inspection revealed that there are some high fences particularly along the north-eastern section of Ellen street where the majority are designed with segments between the piers detailed in tubular steel/ wrought iron and remain 2/3 rds open. There is one fence within this section of the streetscape where a solid 1.8m front fence has been constructed. However, the south-eastern section of Ellen street comprises of approximately 0.9m open picket fences or low (0.3-0.6m) solid brick fences. The proposed fence is considered to be excessive in height and does not integrate well with the streetscape. It will dominate and add to the bulk of the proposed carport creating it the appearance of a garage. It is incompatible with the open section of Ellen Street and will set an undesirable precedent.

 

12.             REFERRALS:

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment, 15 conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

13.             NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 23 January 2002.  As a result of this notification, no submission was received.

 

14.             SECTION 79C 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.

 

15.             ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the assessment criteria or the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and have an adverse impact upon the existing streetscape. The new carport will be out of keeping with the other semi detached dwellings and set an undesirable precedent in a section of Ellen street. The proposal therefore cannot be supported.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and therefore cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

12.       RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council's Team Leader refuse under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.45/02 for permission  for alterations and additions to the existing semidetached dwelling house including carport to side and front new fencing and landscaping at 15 Ellen Street, Randwick for the following reasons:- 

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and attached Dual Occupancies. The siting of the carport structure to the front of the dwelling, the height of the fence and the bulk and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate, and will have an adverse impact upon the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed development does not integrate well with the established setback and dwelling design and will detrimentally impact the environmental amenity of the area.

 

3.         The proposal would set an undesirable precedent in this section of Ellen Street and is not in the public interest.

 

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

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE: .........................................                              

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be refused.

 

I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 22 August 2000, to determine this application.

 

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

 

TEAM LEADER

 

DATE:....................................

 

 

G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE\DEVE2002\Ellen15A#.doc


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

25 June, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0113/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of Determination for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new first floor and garage

PROPERTY:

 19 Lee Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 A and S Wilkins

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Freda Backes, Bruce Notley-Smith.

 

The original development application was for alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house, including a proposed basement garage, associated driveway area, terraced garden and an increase in height of the front fence.

 

The applicant has requested a review of the determination of refusal of an application made under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended, which sought to delete Condition No.2 of the original development consent that required the deletion of the proposed basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in the height of the front fence.

 

The original development application was notified and attracted two submissions from adjoining property owners who raised concerns in relation to the proposed first floor addition to the dwelling only.

 

The main issues are considered to be the impact of the proposed garage on the character and landscape setting of the dwelling and whether the proposal will detract from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

It is recommended that the determination of the application and the existing reasons for refusal of the application be confirmed.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant has requested a review of the determination of refusal of an application made under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which sought to delete Condition No. 2 of the original development consent.  Condition No. 2 required the deletion of a proposed basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in the height of the front fence.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITES AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northeastern side of Lee Street. It is an irregular shaped allotment with a frontage of 13.4m to Lee Street, a rear width of 16.45m, and depth of approximately38m. The site area is 564.5m2.  The site slopes away from the southeastern side boundary to the northwestern side boundary by approximately 2.4m at the rear. 

 

The site is occupied by an elevated single storey dwelling house. On the rear of the site is a double brick garage. The site is adjoined to the northwest by a large townhouse development, and to the southeast by the rear yards of 5 residential properties Nos. 47-55 Howard Street. The site is adjoined at the rear by a large water tower. 

 

The site is located within “The Spot” heritage conservation area.

 

4.         HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION:

 

DA113/2001 to carry out alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new first floor, attic and garage was approved under delegated authority on 23 May 2001 subject to conditions including:

 

2.         The proposed basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in the height of the front fence are not approved and shall be deleted from the approved plans.  The reasons for this deletion are detailed as follows.

 

            The proposed basement level garage will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, from the low scale character of surrounding dwellings in Lee Street and Howard Street and will detract from the character of the subject dwelling and from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.  The proposed basement level garage will increase the apparent scale of the dwelling, detract from its landscape setting and set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

            The proposal does not be comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Section 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways and Section 4.8 Fences.

 

In July 2001, an application seeking a review of Condition No.6 of the development consent which restricted the floor to ceiling height of the proposed first floor addition to a maximum of 2.4m was refused under delegated authority, the original determination being confirmed. 

 

In March 2002, a Section 96 application seeking to delete condition No.2 of the original determination was refused under delegated authority for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed basement level garage will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, from the low scale character of surrounding dwellings in Lee Street and Howard Street.

 

2.         The proposed basement level garage will detract from the character of the subject dwelling and from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

3.         The proposed basement level garage will increase the apparent scale of the dwelling, detract from its landscape setting and set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

4.         The proposal will not be comply with the objectives of Council’s Development Control Plan for Parking in relation to provision of appropriate parking options for properties identified as heritage items or located within a heritage conservation area and maintaining the heritage significance of the site and it’s setting.

 

5.       The proposal will not be comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Garages, Carports and Driveways.

 

6.       The proposal is inconsistent with the zoning objective for residential 2A zoned land and the relevant aims of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided: -

 

5.1       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

5.1.1    Landscape Issues

 

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

5.2       Heritage Planner

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

The subject site is located within The Spot Conservation Area and is occupied by a single storey cottage which, due to the fall of the site is somewhat elevated above the street.  The dwelling retains its Californian Bungalow character including timber detailing and face brickwork.  The dwelling is set back from its northern boundary and has a double garage at the rear of the site.  To north of the subject site is a two storey townhouse development.  Surrounding development to the south in Howard Street generally consists of single storey cottages of similar character to the subject dwelling.

 

An earlier application for the property was withdrawn.  The subsequent development application proposed an upper level addition and a basement garage.  The part of the application relating to the upper level addition was approved, while the part of the application relating to the garage was refused.  A Section 96 application was received to modify the approved application to seek approval for the basement garage.

 

A Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates was submitted with the application.  The Section 96 application modified the design of the basement garage originally proposed to provide a low level planter box between the new garage door and the existing front steps, and to redesign the proposed garage door, and to reclad the lower portion of the side and front elevation.  It is proposed to remove the existing concrete block retaining wall and to excavate the western half of the front garden to provide driveway access to the new garage.  The proposal provides a planter box adjacent to the front steps and the footpath steps, enclosed by a brick retaining wall.  The planter box will have an area of around 5m2 and will be close to the level of the new driveway.  The lower portion of the front and side elevation is to be clad in sandstone, and the size and location of the proposed garage door is to relate to the existing opening above.

 

My heritage comments on the Section 96 application referred to the Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies, which also contains controls in relation to on site car parking.  In relation to car parking, Development Control Plan No.22 notes that Council is generally opposed to altering the front sections of original buildings to accommodate vehicles.  The proposed basement level garage will considerably increase the apparent scale of the dwelling on the front elevation, from two levels (once the approved upper level addition has been constructed) to three levels.  The proposed basement garage will reduce the area of the front garden by around 20m2, replacing this area of soft landscaping with hard paving.  It is considered that the proposed basement garage will detract from the character and landscape setting of the dwelling, and the streetscape of Lee Street.  It is considered that the approval of the proposal would set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

The original application was refused.  The application has now been resubmitted for a review of determination.  The submission includes a letter from Graham Brooks and Associates.  The submission notes that while the proposed garage does increase the apparent scale of the building, it does not affect the actual scale of the building.  It is noted that the proposed excavation increases the height of the front wall of the building by around 2.5m.  The submission notes that the proposal considerably improves the existing landscape setting.  It is noted that the area of soft landscaping is reduced by around 20m2.  The submission notes that the driveway, which provides access to the existing generous double garage, is relatively narrow.  The width of the existing driveway varies between 3.5m and 4.5m.  The submission refers to the precedent set by basement level garages to two Interwar houses in a nearby street.  It is noted however that the overall height of these dwellings is only two storeys, whereas the subject proposal, including the approved upper level addition and the proposed garage will have a height of three storeys.  The current submission does not alter my view that the proposal will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, the landscape setting of the dwelling and the character of the dwelling.

 

It is recommended that Council not change its determination of the application and the existing reasons for refusal be confirmed.

 

6.         STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application, Section 96 Application or condition/s of Development Consent.  Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

A review can only be made on the application as determined.  The application cannot be altered or amended as part of the review process.

 

7.                     ZONING AND STATUTORY ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council's consent.  The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following controls: -

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended

 

8.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development:

 

-           Development Control Plan - Parking

-           Development Control Plan-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

-           Development Control Plan No.22- The Spot and Surrounds

 

9.         NOTIFICATION

 

The owners and occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the original development application in March 2001. Two submissions were received from 2/17 Lee Street and 49 Howard Street, which raised concerns relating to the height of the proposed first floor addition to the dwelling only. As no objections were raised to the proposed basement garage and associated works, no notification of this review application was required.

 

Section 82A of the EPA Act does not contain any statutory requirement to notify any request for review of a determination or a conditions of development consent as the proposal remains unaltered.  

 

10.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

10.1     Reasons for review

 

A detailed submission citing the applicant’s reasons for requesting the review was submitted with the application.

 

The main reasons may be summarised as follows:

 

-           The applicant believes that insufficient consideration has been given to the additional heritage impact assessment material that was submitted with the previous Section 96 application. Further, that they were denied the opportunity to respond to any concerns that Council officers may have had with the application prior to its determination.

 

-           The applicant contends that the proposal complies with the relevant objectives  and standards of Randwick LEP1998 and DCPs for Parking and Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies.

 

10.2     Assessment

 

10.2.1  Development Control Plan-Parking

 

The dimensions of the proposed garage car space comply with the numerical requirements of the DCP. The ramp grade of the extended driveway area providing access to the garage is proposed to match the existing driveway grade and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

 

It should be noted, however, that the existing double garage on the rear of the property already meets the car parking demand of the dwelling house under the DCP. The existing side and rear driveway areas on the property provide further opportunities for car parking within the property.

 

10.2.2  Development Control Plan –Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Landscaping and Open Space

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The proposal meets the minimum dimension and 25sq.m requirements relating to the provision of usable private open space.

 

Currently, approximately 206 sq m or 36.5% of the site area is provided as landscaped area. The proposed driveway area will remove a further 20sq.m (approximately) of soft landscape area from the existing front garden of the dwelling. This is proposed to be offset by the provision of a planter box providing approximately 5sq.m of planting area only, adjacent to the driveway.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the DCP which seek to retain and enhance established landscaped settings of buildings and to maximise provision for soft landscaping by minimising the intrusion of hard surfaced areas, such as driveways, to the fronts of buildings.

 

Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment.

 

The existing double garage on the rear of the property already provides the required amount of on-site parking for the dwelling in accordance with the requirements of DCP-Parking and in accordance with the preferred options for on-site car parking under DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The existing driveway is proposed to be increased in width from approximately 3.5m or 26%, to 5.0m or 37% of the site width. The preferred solution in this regard will not be met. 

 

It is considered that the proposed garage and associated works will detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape and set an undesirable precedent for further inappropriate and unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the area.

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in this regard will not be met.

 

10.2.3  Development Control Plan No.22-The Spot and Surrounds

 

The objectives for development in Residential zones under the DCP include:

 

a.         To conserve and enhance the existing residential streetscapes by ensuring any new development respects the existing low scale residential character and complements the architectural features of adjoining buildings where appropriate.

 

The proposal involves excavation and the removal of the western half of the existing front garden area of the dwelling to provide driveway access to the proposed garage, which would be contained beneath the existing elevated ground floor level of the dwelling. Consequently, the apparent scale of the dwelling as viewed from the street frontage will be increased from two to three levels with the construction of the approved first floor addition. In the context of the adjoining low, two-storey scale townhouse development to the northwest and the single storey cottages fronting Howard Street to the southeast, this is considered inappropriate and is inconsistent with the above objective of the DCP. 

 

10.2.4  Heritage Impact

 

The subject site is contained within The Spot heritage conservation area and therefore, the proposal requires an assessment in accordance with the heritage provisions of Clause 43 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The subject application and accompanying documentation including the Heritage Impact Assessment was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that the proposal will detract from the significance of the Conservation Area.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed basement garage does not meet the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Randwick DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to the siting and design of car parking facilities and provision for landscaping. The proposal is also inconsistent with the provisions of DCP No.22 for The Spot and Surrounds in that the front façade and garden area of the dwelling (being original) is to be altered to accommodate the proposed garage. Further, it is considered that the proposed basement garage will detract from the character and landscape setting of the dwelling, and the streetscape, and will adversely affect the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council not change the determination of the application and the existing reasons for refusal be confirmed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That Council's original determination of the Section 96 Application dated 14 March 2002 in respect of Development Application No.113/01 for 19 Lee Street Randwick be confirmed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Delegated Report dated 30 January 2002.

2.  A4 S96 configuration Plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 


DELEGATED REPORT (S.96Modification)

        Report of the Director of Planning –12th March 2002

 

 

PROPERTY:                       19 Lee Street, Randwick                         WARD: East  

 

FILE REF:                           DA 113/01

 

APPLICANT: A Wilkins

 

OWNER:                            A Wilkins

 

PROPOSAL:                       Section 96 application to delete condition no 2 and modify the front entry of the garage.

 

VALUE OF WORK:          N/A

 

DATE SUBMITTED:         30 January 2002

 

 

1.         HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION:

 

Consent was granted on the 22 nd May 2001 for alterations and additions to the dwelling, subject to conditions, including condition No.2 that stated;

 

“The proposed basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in the height of the front fence are not approved and shall be deleted from the approved plans.  The reasons for this deletion are detailed as follows.

 

The proposed basement level garage will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, from the low scale character of surrounding dwellings in Lee Street and Howard Street and will detract from the character of the subject dwelling and from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.  The proposed basement level garage will increase the apparent scale of the dwelling, detract from its landscape setting and set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

The proposal does not be comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Section 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways and Section 4.8 Fences.”

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

Condition 2 of Development Consent NO 113/2001 dated 22 May 2001, required the deletion of the basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in height of the front fence from the approval.

 

The applicant has requested the deletion of Condition number 2 in order to incorporate the basement garage. The applicant proposed to modify the front entry to the garage. The Section 96 application  proposed  to provide a low level planter box between the new garage door and the existing front steps, redesign the proposed garage door, and to reclad the lower portion of the side and front elevation.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The site is located on the northeastern side of Lee Street and is an irregular shape with a frontage of 13.4m, a rear width of 16.45m, SE depth of 37.7m and a NW depth of 38m and an area of 564.5m2.  The site slopes from the SE boundary to the NW boundary by approximately 2.6m at the rear. 

 

Currently existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house and at the rear of the site is a double brick garage.  The site is adjoined to the NW by a large townhouse development and to the SE the site is adjoined by 5 properties 47-55 Howard Street, which are semi-detached dwellings and a freestanding dwelling.  The site is adjoined at the rear by a large water tower. 

 

The site is located within “The Spot” heritage conservation area.

 

4.         NOTIFICATION

 

Notification was not required.

 

4.                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: -

 

5.1       Heritage Planner

 

The subject site is located within The Spot Conservation Area and is occupied by a single storey cottage which, due to the fall of the site is somewhat elevated above the street.  The dwelling retains its Californian Bungalow character including timber detailing and face brickwork.  The dwelling is set back from its northern boundary and has a double garage at the rear of the site.  To north of the subject site is a two storey townhouse development.  Surrounding development to the south in Howard Street generally consists of single storey cottages of similar character to the subject dwelling.

 

An earlier application for the property was withdrawn.  The subsequent development application proposed an upper level addition and a basement garage.  As compared to the earlier application, the subsequent application somewhat reduced the area of the basement garage and the proposed driveway access.  The part of the application relating to the upper level addition was approved, while the part of the application relating to the garage was refused.  A Section 96 application has now been received to modify the approved application to incorporate the basement garage.

 

An informal pre-lodgement meeting has been held in relation to the proposed basement garage.

 

A Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates has been submitted with the application.  The Section 96 application modifies the design of the basement garage originally proposed to provide a low level planter box between the new garage door and the existing front steps, and to redesign the proposed garage door, and to reclad the lower portion of the side and front elevation.

 

The ground level along the western side of the dwelling has already been lowered to provide a side driveway to the existing garage at the rear of the site, so the lower part of the western wall of the dwelling is of different finish to the upper section, and a concrete block retaining wall has been constructed to the western edge of the front garden.  The western side of the front garden area has been partially terraced down from the level of the eastern side.  It is proposed to remove the existing concrete block retaining wall and to excavate the western half of the front garden to provide driveway access to the new garage.  The current proposal provides a planter box adjacent to the front steps and the footpath steps, enclosed by a brick retaining wall.  The planter box will have an area of around 5m2 and will be close to the level of the new driveway.  The lower portion of the front and side elevation are to be clad in sandstone, and the size and location of the proposed garage door is to relate to the existing opening above.

 

The Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies also contains controls in relation to on site carparking.  In relation to carparking, Development Control Plan No.22 notes that Council is generally opposed to altering the front sections of original buildings to accommodate vehicles.  The proposed basement level garage will considerably increase the apparent scale of the dwelling on the front elevation, from two levels (once the approved upper level addition has been constructed) to three levels.  The proposed basement garage will reduce the area of the front garden by around 20m2, replacing this area of soft landscaping with hard paving.  It is considered that the proposed basement garage will detract from the character and landscape setting of the dwelling, and the streetscape of Lee Street.  It is considered that the approval of the proposal would set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

In relation to the proposed on site carparking provision, the proposed basement garage will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.

 

It is recommended that the proposal be refused on the following grounds:

 

·          The proposed basement level garage will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, from the low scale character of surrounding dwellings in Lee Street and Howard Street.

 

·          The proposed basement level garage will detract from the character of the subject dwelling and from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

·          The proposed basement level garage will increase the apparent scale of the dwelling, detract from its landscape setting and set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

·          The proposal will not be comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Garages, Carports and Driveways.

 

5.2       Engineering Issues

 

The Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services advises that the original engineering conditions 1 to 9 as detailed in the previous memo remain unchanged and should be attached to development consent. It is to be noted that four (4) of the engineering conditions that relates to new driveway/ basement parking were deleted from the original development consent.

 

6.0       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council's consent.  This section 96 has been assessed in accordance with the following controls and is consistent with the provisions of these controls:-

 

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended

 

6.1       Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development:

 

b.         Development Control Plan – Parking

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

 

7.0       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and the following  issues warrant comment.

 

Currently, there is a double garage at the rear of the property with vehicular access from a side driveway adjacent the western boundary. The applicant proposes to increase the width of the driveway to 5.2-7.3m, remove a portion of the fence, excavate under the existing dwelling, remove the front landscape area, provide a low level planter box and reclad the lower portion of the side and front elevation.

 

The proposal does not meet Council’s design criteria which provides that car parking spaces should not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site. The proposed car space occupies approximately 50% of the width of the site. Furthermore, the proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirements and applicable objectives under Section 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways under Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as the proposal will dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape. It will adversely impact upon the bulk and scale of the building as the additional basement garage raises the appearance of the residential development to three storey in height. The proposal will reduce the existing amount of open courtyard to the front and set an undesirable precedent in the street for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the conservation area. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the objectives under section 3.7 of DCP- Parking requires that appropriate parking options be provided for properties identified as heritage items or located within a heritage conservation area and provision of car parking maintains the heritage significance of the site and it’s setting.

 

Given the above and the heritage planner comments, it is recommended that Council adhere to the original decision to refuse that part of the application relating to the basement car parking as it does not satisfy a number of Council requirements under Development Control Plan – Parking &  Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

8.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy Council’s relevant assessment criteria and will have an unreasonable impact upon the streetscape.

 

The development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan. The objectives for the Residential 2 A zone in the Local Environmental Plan 1998 are to encourage the design of development to be in harmony and scale with surrounding development and to preserve and enhance the residential amenity and character of the locality and adjoining residences. The proposal will create an undesirable precedent and also detrimentally impact on the character of the area.

 

It is considered that the applicant’s desire to protect a car at the expense of a streetscape that is an asset for all surrounding residents and the community at large is not warranted and that the condition as originally imposed is justified and supportable.

 

It is therefore recommended that the applicants’ request to have the condition deleted be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to delete Condition No 2 of Development Application No.113/2001 which deleted proposed basement garage, driveway, terraced garden and increase in height of front fence for 19 LEE Street, Randwick for the following reasons: -

 

1.         The proposed basement level garage will detract from the streetscape of Lee Street, from the low scale character of surrounding dwellings in Lee Street and Howard Street.

 

2.         The proposed basement level garage will detract from the character of the subject dwelling and from the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

3.         The proposed basement level garage will increase the apparent scale of the dwelling, detract from its landscape setting and set a poor precedent for further unsympathetic vehicle accommodation in the Conservation Area.

 

4.         The proposal will not be comply with the objectives of Council’s Development Control Plan for Parking in relation to provision of appropriate parking options for properties identified as heritage items or located within a heritage conservation area and maintaining the heritage significance of the site and it’s setting.

 

5.         The proposal will not be comply with the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to Garages, Carports and Driveways.

 

6.         The proposal is inconsistent with the zoning objective for residential 2 A zoned land and the relevant aims of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

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

                                                                                                                                                      

ASSESSMENT PLANNER 

 

DATE: ...................................                                  

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Plan’s Policies and Codes, I have determined that the application in accordance with my delegation dated 22 August 2000.

 

 

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

 

TEAM LEADER

 

 

DATE: ...................................                                 

                                                                                                                                                      

G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE\DEVE2002\Lee19Sec96#.doc






 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

26 June 2002

FILE NO:

D1153/2001/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and first floor addition to existing dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 74 Marine Pde Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 G & B Clarke

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic & Dominic Sullivan.

 

The primary issues of concern are:

 

·          Variation from the building line within the streetscape.

·          Unacceptable impact to Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and streetscape of Marine Pde

·          View loss to adjoining properties

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling. The works include minor alterations to the ground floor including change of window openings and new doors to the façade. An extension is proposed to the first floor to increase the length of the first floor to that of the ground floor footprint. A new patio to the ground floor and a deck to the first floor is proposed forward of the existing building line. The building is to continue to be used as a residential dwelling.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Marine Pde close to the intersection with Torrington Rd. The site has a total area of 551.7sqm with a frontage of 12.19m and a length of 45.26m. The site is currently comprised of a part one, part two storey dwelling with a detached garage located to the rear of the dwelling and a pool to the rear of the site.

 

To the eastern side of the street is Jack Vanny Memorial Park, which adjoins the cliff face to the Pacific Ocean.

 

The street is comprised of predominantly single and two storey dwellings of modest scale similar to the existing dwelling on the subject site. There are limited examples of multi-unit developments within the immediate streetscape. To the south of the site is a two-storey town house development and approximately three properties to the north is a four-storey multi-unit development. The streetscape has an intact pattern of front building setbacks with the only variation being for 76 Marine Pde.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A letter of issues was sent to the applicant on the 18/1/02 raising concerns for the design of the proposal, specifically:

 

·          The upper level is of an asymmetrical form that does not relate to the existing built form.

 

·          The cantilevered balcony adds to the bulk and scale of the development.

 

·          The garbage store area detracts from the symmetrical form of the ground floor.

 

Amended plans were requested to address the above stated concerns. Amended plans were not received and the application was called to Council for determination on the 11/4/02.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1       Objections

 

CL Bennetts

PO Box 673

Maroubra

 

·          Setback to street should be maintained and the encroachment of 76 Marine Pde should not be imitated

 

There is an apparent pattern of front setbacks to Marine Pde which is varied by only one property, No 76 Marine Pde. This property was originally constructed as a commercial development sited to the street alignment. In 1978 the building was converted to a residential development. The reduced setback is typical of a shop front to the street and not a residential development. The reduced setback is not characteristic of the streetscape. It is considered that the setback of the subject site should not reflect the reduced setback of No 76 Marine Pde.

 

M Anderson

72 Marine Pde

Maroubra

 

·          Reduce existing views to the south.

 

View sightline diagrams were not submitted with the application, however it is considered that the dwelling being set forward by an additional 4m from the existing building line will obscure sightlines for the single dwelling to the north. The additional height and bulk of the proposal will block out a section of the view corridor to the south for the adjoining property with no attempt made to articulate the additional storey to preserve views.

 

·          Loss of privacy into front living rooms and bedroom

 

The proposed first floor sitting room will be set forward of the adjoining properties building line such that direct overlooking is not considered likely. New openings to the ground and first floor, which do overlook the adjoining property, are to bedrooms, low usage rooms that are not considered to result in an unacceptable level of overlooking.

 

·          Impact of reduced front setbacks.

 

The proposed increase in the building footprint will result in reduced front setbacks which will obscure views to the south and will interrupt the predominant building line to the streetscape.

 

5.2       Support

 

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

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1       Urban Design

 

Council’s Heritage/ Urban Design Planner has provided the following comments:

 

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is occupied by a symmetrical single storey detached dwelling with an upper level addition set well towards the rear of the dwelling.  The site is prominently located opposite Jack Vanny Memorial Park and will be clearly visible form the surrounding foreshore open space.  To the north of the subject site is a similar symmetrical single storey detached dwelling, while further to the north are several pairs of single storey semi-detached dwellings.  Immediately to the south of the subject site is a two storey building over ground level carparking built to the front boundary.

 

The application proposes to extend the upper level addition towards the front of the dwelling.  A narrow L-shaped deck with glass handrail is proposed at the upper level.  The proposed balcony is cantilevered past the eastern and northern walls of the ground floor resulting in a top heavy appearance which emphasises the bulk of the upper level addition.  The existing dwelling and its neighbour to the north, no.72 Marine Parade are of symmetrical design with central projecting verandahs, later enclosed as sunrooms.  The proposal detracts from the symmetrical form of the ground level by adding a garbage store to the side of the existing sunroom.  The proposed upper level is of an asymmetrical form which does not relate to the design of the ground level of the building.

 

It is suggested that any upper level addition to the existing dwelling retain its characteristic symmetrical front elevation and that any upper level not project beyond the footprint of the ground level.

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

Local Environmental Plan 1998

Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

 

(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

NA

NA

NA

31 - Landscape Area

NA

NA

NA

32 - FSR

NA

NA

NA

33 - Building Height

NA

NA

NA

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Development will not enhance the visual quality of this foreshore area.

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

NA

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

NA

Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The subject site is identified as being contained within the Foreshore Protection Area.

 

The purpose of Clause 29 is to:

 

Identify visually prominent residential areas along the coast and establish consent requirements for development in these areas to protect and enhance their visual qualities.

 

The proposal is inappropriately designed and sited in the context of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  The siting of the proposed addition would add unreasonably to the bulk and scale of the building and will detrimentally impact on the visual qualities of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

7.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

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

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

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

NA- proposal is for alterations and additions to existing dwelling. Energy efficiency has been considered during the design and is detailed in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of overshadowing does not differ from the existing level of over shadowing.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

             collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

             do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

             fit in with hydrology;

             use on–site stormwater infiltration;

             maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

             retain existing trees.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Proposed works are contained within the existing footprint and will not affect existing stormwater management.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

             allows year-round use

             minimises impact on neighbours

             addresses privacy and sun access

             addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

Proposed landscape area is not substantially reduced with this proposal. Works are contained primarily within the existing footprint.

 

Private open space is located to the rear however, the deck and patio to the front of the site is located forward of the building line.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

Complies.

 

Permissible FSR is 0.53:1 proposed is 0.5:1

 

The design of the addition has not incorporated adequate wall modulation and articulation to satisfy the objectives of reducing bulk to additions.

 

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

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

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Non-compliance.

 

 

 

Built form of  the street and the existing dwelling is not enhanced by the design of the addition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design does not allow for view sharing to the south.

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Front setback does not conform with the predominant pattern of setbacks within the street.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Does not comply.

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

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

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Buildings comply with

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

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

 

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.

 

8.2     Site Suitability

 

The proposed alterations and additions do not respond to the characteristics of the subject site, the streetscape and amenity enjoyed by adjoining properties. The proposed development will have an adverse impact to the environmental quality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and the streetscape of Marine Pde. The additions and alterations will be out of character with the siting of dwellings within the streetscape, with the proposed built form and the positioning of the dwelling out of character with properties within the streetscape. Further, the proposed siting of the dwelling will unreasonably impact on the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by the adjoining property to the north.

 

8.3       Urban Design

 

8.3.1    Design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context

 

The proposal does not recognise the dominant building line of the streetscape and the impact of the development on this pattern. The design of the addition and alterations did not consider the impact of altering this building line within the streetscape.

 

The applicant determined the front setback by selecting the midpoint between the two adjoining properties. Whilst representing a technical compliance with the preferred solution, the performance requirement is not met as the proposed setback does not maintain the dominant building line within the street. This building line within the street is clearly read as the setback currently provided by the existing dwelling. Varying this setback is considered to be out of character with the predominant building line of the streetscape and as such does not satisfy the performance requirement.

 

8.3.2    Building envelopes and built form controls

             

There has been little emphasis placed on the objectives of Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials in the design of this addition. The existing character of the locality and the built form of the existing dwelling has not been given adequate consideration in the design of the proposal.

 

The proposed first floor addition does not provide sufficient wall modulation. The addition extends for a length of 15m without any articulation. This does not comply with the preferred solution and there is very little justification provided with the application for this variation.

 

The design of the addition does not relate to the existing built form and does not provide visual interest to the streetscape. Additional articulation and increased setbacks would allow for an improved built form in keeping with the existing dwelling and adjoining properties.

 

8.4       Impact on adjoining development

 

8.4.1    Design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context

             

The projected loss of views for No 72 to the south has not been prepared as part of the site analysis or submitted as part of the application.  View loss to adjoining properties has not been considered in the design and preparation of the application. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the development will result in an unreasonable level of view loss due to its inappropriate siting and does not accord with the principle of view sharing.

 

8.5       Landscaping/Open Space

 

8.5.1    Impact on the public domain

             

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such the design of any development within this area should place strong emphasis on the resultant built form.

 

The visual quality of the proposed building is especially critical due to the location of the public reserve opposite the site.

 

The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the streetscape including the public reserve located on the eastern side of Marine Pde. The bulk, scale and pattern of front setbacks within the streetscape will be altered by this proposal and will result in an unacceptable impact to the scenic quality of the locality. Further, the aesthetic appearance of the building in terms of its massing, proportions and architectural expression does not enhance the visual qualities of the foreshore.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the subject site will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape resulting in an unacceptable precedent in the built form of the street. Further, the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the aesthetic quality of the foreshore area.

 

The development will also have an unreasonable impact on the level of amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining properties in terms of view loss.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1153/01 for Alterations and first floor addition to the existing dwelling house at 74 Marine Pde Maroubra for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed built form and design of the dwelling will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape of Marine Pde as the proposed form is not compatible with the dominant character of the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 12 Zone No 2C (Residential C Zone)  of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposed built form and design of the dwelling will have a detrimental impact on the amenity enjoyed by surrounding residential properties.

 

3.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan- Residential Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies -Part 4.4 Building Setbacks, in that the proposed development does not achieve the objectives of the control in relation to integrating new development within the established setbacks of the street and maintaining the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

4.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan- Residential Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies - Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials, in that the proposed development does not achieve the objectives of the control in relation to ensuring a development does not detract from neighbourhood and street character.

 

5.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan- Part 4.9 Foreshore Development, in that the development does not enhance the scenic qualities and aesthetic appearance of ocean foreshore areas.

 

6.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan- Part 4.9 Foreshore Development, in that the development does not incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow for fair sharing of views.

 

7.         The proposal does not comply with Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, in that the development will have a detrimental impact on the visual qualities of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

8.         The proposed positioning of the dwelling within the site is out of character with the dominant pattern of setbacks and siting of buildings within the streetscape.

 

9.         The proposed first floor will read as a bulky addition to the existing built form of the dwelling. The design of the addition will result in an asymmetrical form, and does not integrate effectively with the existing building.

 

10.       The proposed development is not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 40/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Maroubra Junction Town Centre - Draft Development Control Plan and Draft Local Environmental Plan  

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3000

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

The Maroubra Junction review is well underway and the consultants undertaking the work, the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS), have prepared a draft Development Control Plan following the preparation of an Urban Design Study. A draft Local Environmental Plan will be required to implement some elements of the DCP. This report recommends that Council resolve firstly, to note and exhibit the draft DCP, and secondly, to prepare a draft LEP (to enable the provisions of the draft DCP) under Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended. It also outlines the main issues arising in the draft DCP and notes that the draft LEP and draft DCP will be placed on public exhibition when the required government agency consultations on the draft LEP are completed.

 

2.BACKGROUND:

 

In January 2001 UDAS was engaged by Council to prepare an Urban Design Study of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The Brief for the Study specified a number of outcomes as follows:

 

§   analysis of the existing built environment of the town centre

§   development of urban design principles and guidelines suitable for the centre

§   development of built form controls in particular the identification of the current and appropriate future building envelopes for each site

§   identification of public domain principles and improvements

 

On 8 May 2001, UDAS gave a presentation to the Health Building and Planning Committee on the Maroubra Junction planning and design review, following which the Committee noted the presentation by UDAS and the proposed building envelopes. The Committee also resolved that a draft DCP be prepared for the centre.

 

The UDAS draft Urban Design Study was prepared by September 2001 and, following Council’s endorsement at its meeting on 11 September 2001, the Study was placed on public exhibition from  18 September to 18 October 2001 together with a commercial study which was prepared by an economic consultant, Peter Leyshon, and a Position Paper outlining Council’s understanding of the key issues affecting the Maroubra Junction town centre prepared by Council. In conjunction with the exhibition of these three documents, a comprehensive program of community consultation was conducted comprising the following:

 

§   two public workshops in September and October 2001 involving a formal presentation by UDAS on the draft design principles and planning controls for the Town Centre and public feedback;

§   one presentation to the Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee (March 2002);

§   a display in Council’s Administration Centre foyer for public information and comment

 

As part of its work, UDAS also provided design advice in relation to key sites subject to a current or imminent redevelopment proposal. This included advice to the applicants for the Maroubra Mall Master Plan. A 3D model of the existing and proposed centre was also prepared by UDAS and presented at the workshops.

 

A draft DCP has now been prepared by UDAS based on the Urban Design Study.

 

3.         ISSUES:

 

3.1       Submission received in relation to the exhibition of the UDAS Urban Design Study

 

Fours letters were received in response to the exhibition of the UDAS Urban Design Study from the Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee, a planning consultancy and residents in Storey Street and Mason Street. The submissions have generally raised the following concerns:

 

§   Need for a transport interchange, additional parking, and traffic management.

 

Comment: The draft DCP is primarily an urban design policy to guide the planning and design of future development within the Maroubra Junction town centre. Whilst the draft DCP cannot directly introduce transport and traffic management measures within the town centre, it will facilitate such measures through appropriate public domain strategies. The transport, traffic and parking issues raised in the submission are currently being addressed in the Randwick Transport Study Stage 2 which is currently being undertaken to investigate the transport and traffic requirements of the southern suburbs as well as to provide an overall transport strategy for the Randwick City area. The preparation of the draft DCP will take into consideration the findings of the Randwick Transport Study Stage 2 including any recommendations to enhance transport and manage traffic in the centre.

 

§   Existing site details in the study are inaccurate.

 

Comment: Extensive corrections have been made to existing site details in the draft DCP that have been found to be inaccurate. The exhibition period will allow further feedback from objectors on these details.

 

§   The height of, and use within, proposed building envelopes are questionable in relation to amenity impacts and visual quality

 

Comment: The height of the proposed building envelopes, and the proportion of commercial to residential uses within these envelopes, in various locations within the town centre has been assessed and formulated appropriately in the draft DCP on the basis of the following principles:

 

§   Taller buildings will be located in the core of the town centre to reinforce the junction gradually decreasing in height towards the periphery.

 

§   Along Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road a minimum of two levels of commercial/retail uses will be required whilst one level of commercial/retail will be required along smaller streets in peripheral areas. If there is little demand for commercial/uses in peripheral areas, then all levels can be residential.

 

§   Building heights have been defined in specific locations to achieve built form outcomes that reinforce quality urban and building design.

 

§   Prominence of certain street corners will be reinforced by concentrating the tallest portion of the building on the corner.

 

§   The areas proposed for rezoning to commercial use are inappropriate due to impact on adjoining residential properties.

 

Comment: The UDAS Urban Design Study recommended a number of areas for rezoning to commercial use (General Business 3A) all at the fringe of the existing town centre. Following an assessment of these areas, three locations have been identified as suitable for rezoning and these are assessed and described in the relevant section below.

 

§   The building depth of 30m for property at corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street is unreasonable.

 

Comment: UDAS has recommended varying building depths for different sites such that buildings are sited to address the front and rear of the lot so as to:

 

§   Maximise surveillance of the street.

§   Retain remnant vegetation at the rear of the site.

§   Maximise distance between buildings at the rear.

§   Minimise the opportunity for noise to travel externally between dwellings.

§   Maximise the opportunity for visual privacy.

§   Maximise the provision of well-configured open space.

 

Consequently, the draft DCP encourages buildings that are oriented along the street rather than across individual lots and building forms with narrow floor plans to allow for penetration of natural light and natural air-flow through the building. Narrow floor plans can also reduce the extent of cut and fill required, reducing soil erosion and minimising disturbance to the natural topography.

The issues raised in these submissions have been noted and forwarded to UDAS and appropriately considered and addressed where relevant in the preparation of the draft DCP.

 

3.2Draft Development Control Plan

 

The Draft DCP proposes controls that differ from the current controls in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The draft DCP primarily provides for a building envelope approach (building siting, height, width and depth) instead of the current height and floor space ratio limits applying for all future developments across Maroubra Junction. The draft DCP divides the town centre into 12 blocks each comprising sites with defined building envelopes.

 

3.2.1    Height

 

The draft DCP will have a building envelope control that defines building height by the number of storeys and the minimum floor to ceiling heights. Under this control the tallest buildings of 8 storeys high will be allowed along Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road in the vicinity of the intersection of these two roads so as to reinforce the “junction” whilst lower buildings of between 3 to 5 storeys will be allowed towards the edge of the commercial area so that the amenity of adjoining residential zones will be maintained. The 8 storeys equates to an absolute height of 26.4m for a building with minimum floor to ceiling heights of 3.6m for the ground floor, 3.3m for the first floor, and 2.8m for residential floors above the first floor (assuming a floor slab thickness of 300mm and measured to the underside of the roof slab). This compares with the current building height of 24m allowed under the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

3.2.2    Floor Space Ratio

 

As the Draft DCP uses a building envelope approach, it does not specify a predefined Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for developments within the town centre. However, UDAS has indicated in the Draft DCP that the FSR for each site should be calculated at 85 per cent of the total building envelope on commercial floors and 80 per cent of the total building envelope on residential floors, to allow for articulation elements such as balconies, terraces and atriums. Effectively, 10-20 per cent of the gross floor area of the building will be dedicated to these articulation elements. The envelopes compare to the current maximum FSR of 3:1 (maximum 2:1 for residential and minimum 1:1 for commercial uses) under the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

3.3Draft Local Environmental Plan

 

Under the Draft LEP, the existing General Business 3A zoning under Randwick LEP 1998 remains appropriate throughout the centre. However, as a building envelope approach is proposed, the existing maximum 3:1 FSR control (of which a minimum 1:1 of this FSR must be for commercial/retail use), and maximum 24m building height control, for the commercial centre will be replaced by the proposed envelope controls. The draft DCP recommends that a minimum of two level of commercial/retail use be provided in new developments in the core area of the town centre whereas more flexibility to reduce this requirement to a single floor or none at all can be made in  peripheral areas of the centre where demand for commercial/retail floor area is less. The draft LEP will essentially be an enabling document to put into effect the detailed provisions of the DCP.

 

The Urban Design Study raised a number of zoning issues in the town centre. Subsequently, the Draft DCP identified three minor areas at the boundary of the town centre for rezoning in a draft LEP to General Business 3A. These are as follows (see also attached Map 1):

 

1.         Land at the south-western corner of Anzac Parade and Shepherds Street (western side of Anzac Parade)

 

The subject land is currently zoned Residential 2B and comprises two lots each containing a dwelling house and both used as health consulting rooms. The rezoning of the subject land to Business 3A would extend the boundary of the Business 3A zone to Shepherd Street being the edge of the block thus ensuring a tidier demarcation of the boundary at the northern end of the town centre. The existing two properties face a large blank wall to the south which forms part of the Bowen Library building. The draft DCP proposes a 4 storey-building envelope for the subject lots, which would minimise the visual impact of the blank wall, and would not adversely impact on the adjacent site along Shepherd Street (which could potentially be developed to 2 storeys under its current 2A zoning). The inclusion of these two lots in the Business 3A zone would also facilitate any future amalgamation of these lots along Anzac Parade. It is recommended that the subject land be rezoned to General Business 3A.

 

2.         Land bounded by Boyce Road, Garden Street and Green Street (western side of Garden Street)

 

The subject land is currently zoned Residential 2B with predominantly 1960s to 1970s three-storey walk-up residential flat buildings, a few single storey dwelling houses and a Sydney Water easement. As such, the area lacks visual consistency and appears as an irregular mix of building types. In this regard, the introduction of a Business 3A zone will allow for a more uniform urban streetscape in this area especially in view of the draft DCP which proposes up to 5 storey buildings along the Boyce Road and Green Street frontages and 3 storey buildings along Garden Street with a deep soil zone integrating the rear of these building blocks. In addition, the draft DCP promotes the redevelopment of Green Street into a traffic calmed, strip-shopping lane lined with trees and sidewalk cafes linked directly and visually to the proposed Maroubra Mall. The rezoning of the subject land will be consistent with the proposed changes to Green Street. It is recommended that the subject land be rezoned to Business 3A.

 

3.         Land at No. 1 and No.3 Robey Street adjoining the Maroubra Junction Sub-station

 

The subject land is currently zoned Residential 2B and comprises two lots each containing a dwelling house. The rezoning of the subject land to Business 3A would extend the boundary of the Business 3A zone to the sub-station site in line with the existing boundary that currently extends from Ferguson Street. This extension in the boundary of the Business 3A zone will create a tidier demarcation of the boundary in this part of the town centre and the inclusion of the subject two lots in the Business 3A zone would facilitate better amalgamation to the adjacent lots along Maroubra Road. It is recommended that the subject land be rezoned to Business 3A.

 

The above three areas will add approximately 7000 sqm of commercial zoned land to the centre (compared to a total of 16.3ha in the centre currently). The proposed rezonings will not, therefore, significantly increase the amount of commercial zoned land. Furthermore, the draft DCP also recommends flexibility in the extent of commercial floor space required on sites at the periphery of the Maroubra Junction Town centre, where these proposed rezoning areas are located.

 

3.4       Economic Analysis of the draft DCP

 

Council has referred the Draft DCP to an economic consultant to confirm the economic feasibility of the proposed building envelopes. As it was not possible to analyse each and every lot within the town centre, a sample of 12 lots was selected by Council and UDAS for analysis. The selection sought to cover a variety of sites ranging from those fronting major roads such as Anzac Parade to smaller internal roads, and sites with a variety of proposed building heights.

 

The assessment indicated that the development sites in the sample would have economically feasible building envelopes with the exception of individual sites on Boyce Road in Block 4 of the draft DCP, Garden Street in Block 7, and Anzac Parade through to Byng Lane in Block 12. These sites are not wide enough to create basement carparking and have insufficient road frontage (see attached Map 2). Development of these sites would only be feasible through amalgamation with adjoining and neighbouring sites. The draft DCP will have provisions to encourage amalgamation of sites which are contained Part 4 of the draft DCP.

 

Overall, the findings of the economic study are considered acceptable and UDAS have advised that no changes to the draft DCP were required as a result of the economic analysis.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is anticipated that a draft DCP and draft LEP will be publicly exhibited in August or shortly after, pending the required consultations (under Section 62 of the EPA Act) with government agencies on the draft LEP. It is also intended that a public workshop will be convened during the exhibition period to allow the community to discuss the contents of the draft documents in more detail. At the conclusion of the exhibition period, the submissions will be reviewed and the issues addressed in a report to Council.

 

The Urban Design Study together with the commercial study and position paper have provided an analytical basis for the preparation of a draft Development Control Plan for Maroubra Junction. The draft DCP has been prepared, a copy of which is attached to this report. A draft amending LEP will be required to support the provisions of the DCP and to allow rezoning of relevant lands to occur. The proposed rezonings will not represent a significant change in the area of commercial zoned land in the centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.         Note and endorse the draft DCP for exhibition.

 

2.         Resolve under Section 54 and 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan for land in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre to effect any amendments to the zoning and planning controls in the centre and peripheral land including rezoning of the following:

 

a.         Land at the southwestern corner of Anzac Parade and Shepherds Street (western side of Anzac Parade)

 

b.         Land bounded by Boyce Road, Garden Street and Green Street (western side of Garden Street)

 

c.        Land at No. 1 and No.3 Robey Street adjoining the Maroubra Junction Sub-station1.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Draft DCP for Maroubra Junction (as at June 2002) (to be provided separately)

2.         Map of the proposed rezonings.

3.         Map of sites that require amalgamation..)

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 




MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

8.1       Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Greenwood, Matson & Whitehead –Extraordinary Council Meeting, 25th June, 2002 – Item 6.3 – Director Planning & Environment’s Report 39/2002 – Development Application No. 1206/01 for demolition of existing building and erection of an 8 storey mixed commercial and residential building at No. 450-458 Anzac Parade, Kingsford. (D/1206/2001)

 

That the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 25th June, 2002, reading as follows:-

 

A.        That Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No. 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to building height) on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.         That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/1206/2001 for demolition of existing building and erection of an 8 storey mixed commercial and residential building at 450-458 Anzac Parade, Kingsford 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 Director of Planning and Environment:

 

1.         Advice from the Federal Airports Corporation, and/or any other relevant body,  that no objection is raised, and approval is given, to the building height of the proposed development.

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The applicant is to engage an EPA Accredited Site Auditor. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended use and the potential for groundwater contamination and migration. A satisfactory site audit report and site audit statement is to be submitted to and accepted by Council, which confirms that the site is or will be suitable for its intended use after implementation of a remedial action plan.

 

The owner of the site must comply with all additional conditions, which may be imposed or recommended by the EPA accredited auditor, as may be listed in the site audit statement, as a result of the assessment of contamination, and written confirmation is to be obtained from the owner of the site accordingly.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 3

 

months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulation 1998, or the consent will lapse.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the 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:

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 00 to DA 07 dated December 2001 and received by Council on 18 December 2001, and amended plans numbered DA 01 Revision B received by Council on 28 March 2002, DA 02 to DA06, and DA 09, Revision C, received by Council on 20 June 2002, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

           

3.         Five car spaces shall be allocated for residential visitor carparking and twenty carspaces shall be allocated for commercial carparking.

 

4.         Car parking spaces marked Nos. 10, 14, 15 and 16 shall be designated for small cars only with appropriate signage to indicate this.

 

5.         Amended plans indicating the installation of environmentally acceptable and aesthetically pleasing sun shading devices to the north-facing windows on the north elevation of the proposed development are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development

 

6.         A new development application shall be submitted for the strata sub-division of the proposed development

 

7.         The consumption of water within the proposed building shall be minimised by the use of triple A-rated water efficient plumbing features (taps and shower roses) and water-efficient dual flush toilets. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate.

 

8.         The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning and Environment, prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

9.         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.

 

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

 

11.       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.

 

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

 

13.       The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

14.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

15.       Vehicular access to the residential and commercial car parking within the development shall be readily accessible to visitors at all times. Where a security gate is provided restricting access to the basement carparking area, a suitable intercom system shall be installed adjacent to the vehicular entrance together with appropriate instructions signage to provide for access to visitor spaces at all times.

 

16.       The proposed commercial suites shall only be used for commercial purposes.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

17.       All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and DUAP, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

18.       A copy of the Validation Report shall be submitted to Council upon completion of the remedial works and prior to commencing building work.  This report shall be prepared with reference to the NSW Environment Protection Authority guidelines, Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, and shall include:

 

§                                             Description and documentation of all works performed.

§                                             Results of validation testing and monitoring.

§                                             Validation results of any imported fill onto the site.

§                                             Demonstrate how all agreed clean-up criteria and relevant regulations have been satisfied.

§                                             Clear justification as to the suitability of the site for the proposed use and the potential for off-site migration of any residual contaminants.

 

19.       The proponent shall engage the services of a site auditor holding current accreditation in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.  Within one (1) month from the completion of remediation works a Site Audit Statement (SAS) together with a Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) in the format defined by the Contaminated Land Management Regulation 1998 shall be furnished to Council.

 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

20.       All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

§                     Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

§                     Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

§                     Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

§                     Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

·                    Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTION

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for Section 94 Contributions:

 

21.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision or improvement of public open space in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $43,114.42. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

22.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of community facilities in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $19,063.48.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

23.       In accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for administration charges for an amount of $425.00.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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:

 

24.       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.

 

25.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted with the construction certificate application, which demonstrates that the development will comply with AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics-Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors, in relation to the door and window openings to the residential units.

 

A report is also to be provided to the principal certifying authority (and the Council, if it is not the PCA) upon completion, which confirms compliance with AS/NZS2107:2000 and the relevant requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & conditions of development consent.

 

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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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:

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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 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 above stated 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:

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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. 

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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

 

40.       A coloured works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

41.       A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

(a)        Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

(b)        On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       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.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       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.

 

46.       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”.

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

49.       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.

 

50.       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.

 

51.       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.

 

52.       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.

 

53.       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 provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

54.       Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1. Details of the proposed access, facilities and carparking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

55.       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.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

56.       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

b)         $2000.00         -           Vehicular crossing 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.

 

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.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

58.       Construct full width heavy duty vehicular crossings in Middle Lane opposite the vehicular entry/exit points for the site and the proposed Loading Dock.

 

59.       Construct kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entry and exit points.

 

60.       Carry out a full depth, minimum 3.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

61.       Construct a footpath along the full Middle Lane site frontage, except opposite the vehicular entry and exit points.  Any footpath construction works shall use materials that are in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Kingsford.

 

62.       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.

 

63.       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.

64.       All walls adjacent to the vehicular exit should be splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres, and/or lowered to a maximum height of 600mm above the internal driveway and/or suitably setback from the street alignment such that the driver of an exiting vehicle stopped two metres behind the boundary line could observe pedestrians up to two metres away from the exit crossing. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition. As an alternative to the above the applicant would be required to submit for approval, and have approved by the Certifying Authority, a traffic management plan aimed at minimising the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflict at the exit driveway. The traffic management plan would need to be approved prior to release of the construction certificate and the applicant would be required to meet all costs associated with implementation of the plan including installation of any traffic/pedestrian control devices.

 

65.       A work zone is to be provided, (at full cost to the applicant), at a suitable location along the site frontage. The applicant shall contact Council’s Traffic Engineer to determine the preferred location for the work zone prior to lodgement of a construction certificate application. The work zone shall have a minimum length of 12 metres, and all fees must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

66.       The applicant shall install a traffic control system to be used for vehicles entering/exiting the circular access ramp. Prior to release of the construction certificate the applicant shall submit for approval, and have approved by the Certifying Authority, full design and location details for the traffic control system. This condition is required because the width of the circular access ramps does not comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1 – 1993 for two-way traffic on curved circulation roadways and ramps.

 

67.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the applicant shall submit to the Certifying Authority for approval, and have approved, longitudinal sections along the extremities and the centreline of each internal driveway/access ramp at a scale of 1:20. Each section shall indicate compliance with Council’s issued alignment levels. Vehicular access driveways are to be designed in general accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking and the relevant sections of AS 2890.1-1993.

 

68.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant shall dedicate a strip of land 1.2 metres wide along the Middle Lane site frontage for road widening of Middle Lane.

 

69.       The applicant shall meet the full cost for “No Standing” restrictions to be installed in Middle Lane along the full Middle Lane site frontage.

 

70.       All security roller shutters are to be suitably located such that operation of the shutters, or any keypads associated with the shutters, will not impact on the through movement of traffic within Middle Lane, (i.e vehicles queuing whilst waiting for shutters to open should not impede through vehicle movements).

 

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

 

71.       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, are as follows:

 

Anzac Parade: match the back of the existing footpath along the full Anzac Parade site frontage.

 

Middle Lane: 75mm above the centreline of Middle Lane at all points opposite.

 

72.       The above alignment levels have been issued by the Council's Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services at a prescribed fee of $564.00 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.

 

73.       The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/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.

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

74.       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.

 

75.       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.

 

76.       Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Any electricity substation required for the site is to be located within the site and is to be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant is to liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging the construction certificate to see if an electricity substation will be required for the development.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

77.       The minimum ground floor level shall be constructed at RL 26.12. This condition has been imposed o help reduce the possibility of stormwater inundating the proposed ground floor level during a major storm event.

 

78.       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.

 

79.       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 have to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

80.       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.

 

81.       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.

 

82.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

85.       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).

 

86.       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.

 

87.       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)

 

88.       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.

 

89.       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.

 

90.       The garbage storage 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.

 

91.       A 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 bay/s (or equivalent)

 

d)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car-washing bay.

 

92.       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.

 

93.       As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer and/or 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).

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

94.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the applicant shall submit for approval, and have approved by the Certifying Authority, detailed landscape plans, drawings and specifications for the development. The landscape plans, 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.

 

95.       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.

 

96.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $10,000.00 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.

 

Waste Management Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

97.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for both the residential and commercial components of the development site, post construction. The number of bins to be provided for the commercial component of the development can be calculated based on 1 x 240 litre garbage bin per 2 units and 1 x 240 litre recycle garbage bin per 2 units. Waste collection for the commercial component of the development would need to be separate to the residential component.

 

A         ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

1.         The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

            In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a)         Part B1                        -           Structural provisions

            b)         Part C1                        -           Fire resistance and stability

            c)         Clause D1.4                 -           Exit travel distances

            d)         Part D3                        -           Access for people with disabilities

            e)         Part E1                         -           Fire fighting equipment

            f)          Part E2                         -           Smoke Hazard Management

            g)         Part E3                         -           Lift Installations

            h)         Part E4                         -           Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning

systems

            i)          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.

 

2.         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.

 

3.         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 and 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.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

Upon the abovementioned Rescission Motion being carried, it is intended to move the following motion:-

 

That this matter be reopened so that the affects of the amalgamation of this building with the Castellorizian Club can be understood, and also so that the requirements of DCP 16 and any other relevant controls can be adhered to with respect to all matters relating to the built form.