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

 

 

23rd August, 2002

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 27TH AUGUST 2002 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 23RD JULY, 2002.

 

3           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           General Manager's Reports

 

5.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 14/2002 - JUNE 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2

 

5.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 15/2002 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL’S SEAL TO DOCUMENTS.

3

 

 

6           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 92/2002 - TENDER 11/02 - CIVIL MAINTENANCE WORKS.

5

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 93/2002 - ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAM 2002-2003.

10

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 94/2002 - REVISED PROGRAMME ROADWORKS, UNALLOCATED 2002/03 BUDGET.

12

 

6.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 95/2002 - 2002/2003 ROAD FUNDING.

14

 

6.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 96/2002 - KENSINGTON / WEST KINGSFORD LATM SCHEME - PROPOSED TRIAL IN WEST KENSINGTON.

18

 

 

 

6.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 97/2002 - MOVEABLE FOOTWAY SIGNS (ADVERTISING SANDWICH BOARDS & A-FRAME SIGNS).

23

 

6.7                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 98/2002 - SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN POLICY.

29

 

6.8                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 99/2002 - CENTENARY TREE PLANTING PROJECT.

37

 

 

7           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 29/2002 - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ALTERATIONS, ETC.

43

 

 

8           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 51/2002 - 6 EASTBOURNE AVENUE, CLOVELLY.

46

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 52/2002 - SHOP 9, 262-266 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE.

60

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 53/2002 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION - DEPARTMENT OF AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE.

68

 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 54/2002 - AMENDED MASTER PLAN FOR 100 - 120 KING STREET, RANDWICK.

70

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 55/2002 - 11 LEONARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

82

 

8.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 56/2002 - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE FOR 74 MARINE PARADE MAROUBRA.

91

 

8.7                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 57/2002-  INTEGRATION OF COUNCIL'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY & COUNCIL'S PLANNING INSTRUMENTS.

110

 

8.8                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 58/2002 - RELOCATION OF COUNCIL'S GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING FACILITY TO 15 BUMBORRAH POINT ROAD, PORT BOTANY.

125

 

8.9                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 59/2002 - 54 CANBERRA STREET, RANDWICK.

128

 

8.10                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 60/2002 - 135-143 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

157


 

8.11

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 61/2002 – 3R MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA.  (PAVILION CAFÉ – MAROUBRA BEACH).

165

 

 

9           Petitions

 

10         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

10.1                      

By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Traffic Islands on McCauley, Harold and Raymond Streets, Matraville.

178

10.2

By Councillor Schick – Re-routing the 302, 357 and 359 Bus Services.

178

10.3

By Councillor Bastic – Increased Funding to the Windgap Foundation Ltd and other Service Providers.

178

10.4

By Councillor Bastic – Civic Reception for former Vice Chancellor of University of N.S.W.

179

10.5

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Rainbow Street Pedestrian Crossing.

179

10.6

By Councillors Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Sullivan and White – Providing footpaths to all streets in South and Central Wards.

179

 

 

11         Urgent Business

 

12         Confidential Report

 

12.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 100/2002 - ONGOING MANAGEMENT OF THE DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE.

180

 

 

13         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

14         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 14/2002

 

SUBJECT:

JUNE 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

JUNE 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN (under separate cover)

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 15/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF COUNCILS SEAL TO DOCUMENTS

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2265, 98/S/1698

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

(a)        Coogee Bay Public Reserve (R35571) which is managed by Randwick City Council and the Clovelly Surf Lifesaving Club Incorporated for the purpose of beach patrolling and surf lifesaving.

 

(b)        Dunningham Reserve Trust (known as Grant Reserve) which is managed by Randwick City Council and the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for the purpose of beach patrolling and surf lifesaving.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

(a)        Coogee Bay Public Reserve (R35571) which is managed by Randwick City Council and the Clovelly Surf Lifesaving Club Incorporated for the purpose of beach patrolling and surf lifesaving.

(b)        Dunningham Reserve Trust (known as Grant Reserve) which is managed by Randwick City Council and the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for the purpose of beach patrolling and surf lifesaving.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 92/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 11/02 - CIVIL MAINTENANCE WORKS

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4655

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with the General Manager’s permission, tenders were called for preferred suppliers of the listed civil maintenance services to supplement the Council’s existing internal capacities.

 

§ Stormwater Drainage;

§ Kerb and Gutter;

§ Asphalt Minor Works;

§ Segmental Paving;

§ Pavement Marking;

§ Concrete works & Restorations;

§ Landscape Turfing; and

§ Bricklaying.

 

It was specified that the agreement period would be for 2 years with an optional extension for a further year. 

 

Tenders closed on Tuesday 25th June 2002, with twenty one (21) submissions received for various categories within the list.  Discussion and evaluation of the Tenders received are set out in this report.

 

ISSUES:

 

Presently the Council undertakes a process of individual quoting and/or tendering for each of the nominated services, as they are required.  This process is time consuming, repetitive and does not necessarily provide the best value for money required by the Council.

 

To address this inefficiency it was decided to undertake a tender process for the services and on determination of those suppliers offering the greatest value for money, enter into a “Preferred Suppliers” agreement with them for a defined period of time.

 

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Specification Part A ‘Conditions of Tendering’ advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1993. Tenderers were also given an indication of the selection criteria (see below), which would be used in the evaluation:

(a)        The rates;

(b)        Quality Management;

(c)        Occupational Health and Safety;

(d)        Experience

(e)        Capacity to undertake the works.

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

Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising:

Mr. Robert Taaffe – Technical Officer, Assets & Infrastructure

Mr. Gary Stone – Technical Officer, Assets & Infrastructure

Mr. Shane Cooke – Technical Officer, Assets& Infrastructure

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was:

1.   The evaluation committee undertook an objective quantative assessment of the completed schedules, submitted as part of each tender.  In particular Schedule B17 asked a number of specific questions drawn from the Part E “Requirements Specification”. 

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

3.   The tenderers rates, submitted in Schedule B3 “Tender Submission” were compared in a number of ways depending on their complexity and relevance to determine the best rates submitted for a particular service.  In some cases individual rates were compared directly.  Where there were a number of relevant rates, an average rate was calculated and where the volume of rates was considered to be to great, critical rates were averaged to arrive at a sensible conclusion.

4.   The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Summary Scoring” sheet and where the score was considered acceptable it was further related to the $ rate submitted or averaged for that service. 

5.   The results of this assessment are attached.

Based on this assessment the team was able to recognise a single submission for each service that offered the Council the “best value for money”.

Discussion of Tenders

As was the multi-faceted structure of works set out in the tender document, not all tenderers submitted rates for all specified categories. All categories were collated and assessment of rates was structured on an average calculation, which then enabled the committee to assess highest to lowest rate.

 

Discussed by the evaluation committee was the benefit in rationalization to a singular contractor but this was soon overturned due to the competitive pricing offered by the tenderers. The committee then tabled the separate categories and recommend different contractors for these categories.

 

Minor Concrete Works had the most tenderers competing and the result in the score was tied between Remediation Environmental Contractors Pty Ltd and Benpave Limited. Since it was clear that both companies could provide a satisfactory service to Council in this category, it was decided that the cheaper price submitted by Remediation Environmental Contractors Pty Ltd should be the determining factor in giving Council the “best value for money.”.

 

Remediation Environmental Contractors Pty Ltd was also ranked the “best value for money” for the provision of Asphalt Works, Turfing and Stormwater Drainage.

 

The Segmental Paving evaluation indicated that K.K.Civil Engineering Pty Ltd was the “best value for money” and rated favorably in the evaluation scoring.

 

Due to the standards requirement set out in AUS-SPEC #2, many potential suppliers for Pavement Marking relinquished the opportunity to tender, thus leaving one only tenderer. This tenderer, Menai Linemarking Pty Ltd, scored reasonably well on all aspects of the evaluation criteria. Council currently uses Menai Linemarking Pty Ltd and their performance is regarded as satisfactory.

 

The Kerb and Gutter works evaluation rating score was tied between Merko Services P/L and South West Kerbing P/L. After analysing the $ rates involved it was found that South West Kerbing Pty Ltd was marginally better “value for money”. However, this company currently does the majority of Council’s kerbing and guttering  and their performance has always been satisfactory. On this basis it was decided that this company should be recommended as the “Preferred Supplier’ in this category.

The Bricklaying Works evaluation produced a clear result in favour of Benpave Limited for all aspects of the tender criteria.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Selection Committee independently scored the tenders for each category based on the scoring guideline and the “best value for money”.

 

Based on the above information,the following are the listed categories with the Selection Committee’s recommendations for preferred suppliers:

 

Stormwater Drainage               -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Kerb and Gutter                      -             South West Kerbing Pty Ltd

Asphalt Minor Works              -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Segmental Paving                     -             K K Civil Engineering

Pavement Marking                   -             Menai Linemarking Services Pty Ltd

Concrete Works                      -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

& Restorations

Landscape Turfing                   -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Bricklaying                               -             Benpave Limited

 

Council’s Purchasing and Contracts Manager has been involved during the process of tender assessment, has viewed this report and is satisfied with the following recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council accepts the Tenders submitted by the following tenderers for the services as nominated below.

 

Stormwater Drainage          -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Kerb and Gutter                  -             South West Kerbing Pty Ltd

Asphalt Minor Works         -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Segmental Paving                -             K K Civil Engineering

Pavement Marking              -             Menai Linemarking Services Pty Ltd

Concrete Works                 -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

& Restorations

Landscape Turfing               -             Remediation Environmental Contractors P/L

Bricklaying                          -             Benpave Limited

 

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

 

3.   The Mayor and General Manager or their delegated representative be authorised to enter into agreements for preferred supplier status with the successful tenderers for a period of 2-years with the option of extending the period of the agreement for a further 1-year. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Scoring Guideline, Scoring Summary and Evaluation Scoring Sheets (under separate cover)  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

SHANE COOKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

OPERATIONAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL SUPPORT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 93/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAM 2002-2003

 

 

DATE:

15 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3626

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Federal Government’s Roads to Recovery Programme, administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, commenced in 2000/2001 and provides funding for roads in rural, regional and metropolitan areas. The funds are provided in the form of grants directly to local government bodies for expenditure on roads in addition to current spending levels. Under the program, Randwick City Council was advised it would receive a total of $1,604,205, paid as $401,051 each year for the four years commencing 2000/2001.

 

ISSUES:

 

Programme administration details were not finalised by the Department until February 2001, and consequently, due to the progression of the financial year and the minimal time available to prepare a value for money works program, the 2000/2001 funds were not drawn on, and were deferred to the next year.  

 

Council at its meeting 28 August 2001, resolved that the 2001/2002 and deferred 2000/2001 Roads to Recovery Programme allocations totalling $802,102, be implemented in accordance with the priorities listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 63/2001. A works schedule totalling $802,102 was forwarded to the Department.

 

Subsequently, Council was advised by the Department that due to accelerated payments to some Councils in 2000/2001, the minimum funding available for 2001/2002, would be yearly $401,051 allocation, with the potential for further funding depending on the extent of the accelerated payments.

 

In anticipation of part further funding, projects were completed to the value of $610,785 according to priority. However, Council received only $401,048 under the programme in 2001/2002 and consequently, $209,737 expenditure will be funded by the 2002/2003 allocation.

 

On 16th May, 2002, Council was advised of re-phasing of the Roads to Recovery Programme by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Council will still receive the same total funding over the life of the programme, however, the 2002/2003 allocation will be reduced by two thirds from $401,051 to $267,368. Accounting for the 2001/2002 expenditure  carryover of $209,737, this leaves an allocation of $57,631 for 2002/2003 works under the programme.

 

It is proposed that the 2002/2003 allocation be utilised for heavy patching and resurfacing works at Duncan Street Maroubra, between Malabar Road and Maxwell Street, as prioritised by Council’s Pavement Management System.

 

The Pavement Maintenance Management System prioritises the selection of pavement sections for works based on merit, through consideration of factors such as condition and usage, to ensure budget spending maximises the benefit to the whole community.

 

In some instances, substantial cost savings are made in the timing and type of treatments to road pavements, depending on their level of deterioration. For this reason, it may appear that roads   in good condition have received an unnecessary treatment, when in fact their treatment has been prioritised to prevent greater future costs.  

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s 2002/2003 Roads to Recovery Programme allocation of $57,631 should be utilised for work at Duncan Street, Maroubra, between Malabar Road and Maxwell Street, as prioritised by Council’s Pavement Management System.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Roads to Recovery Programme 2002/2003 allocation of $57,631 be utilised for heavy patching and resurfacing works at Duncan Street Maroubra, between Malabar Road and Maxwell Street, as prioritised by Council’s Pavement Management System.   

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 94/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVISED PROGRAMME ROADWORKS, UNALLOCATED 2002/03 BUDGET

 

 

 

DATE:

15 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0555, 98/S/4423

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Extraordinary Meeting held on 18 June 2002, resolved that an application for a special variation in general income for 2002/03 be made to the Minister for Local Government, with increased income being allocated in the Capital Works Programme to Roadworks, Resurfacing Unallocated. The detail of works in this programme was submitted to the meeting as additional information.

 

Council at its Extraordinary Meeting held on 16 July 2002, noted the Minister’s determination of approval for a reduced special variation in general income to that in Council’s application. Consequently, it was resolved that the Budget 2002/03 be amended with the allocation in the Capital Works Programme for Roadworks, Resurfacing Unallocated reduced by $368,063 to $613,937, and a further report be submitted to Council outlining the revised programme for Roadworks, Unallocated.

 

ISSUES:

 

Since the submission of the original programme, road pavement problems in High Street, between Anzac Parade and the AJC Entrance, have developed as a result of a change to the High Street traffic regime combined with substantial amounts of stormwater runoff from the racecourse in the north side kerb and gutter. Consequently, works on this road section have been included in the revised programme for Roadworks, Unallocated, which has been amended to reflect the reduced allocation. It is proposed that the revised programme be as follows:

 

Street

From

To

Suburb

High Street

Anzac Parade

AJC Entrance

Randwick

Albion Street

Carrington Road

Pine Street

Randwick

Havelock Avenue

Asher Street

Carr Street

Coogee

Lucas Avenue

Austral Street

Zions Avenue

Malabar

Zions Avenue

Lucas Avenue

Prince Edward Street

Malabar

 

 

 

 

Napier Street

Victoria Street

Bay Parade

Malabar

Koorinda Avenue

Mooramie Avenue

Doncaster Avenue

Kensington

Chicago Avenue

Minneapolis Crescent

Portland Crescent

Maroubra

Sturt Street

Bunnerong Road

Anzac Parade

Kingsford

 

 

 

 

Total  $613, 937

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The revised programme for Roadworks, Unallocated, should be amended to reflect the reduced allocation, and include works on High Street, between Anzac Parade and the AJC Entrance, due to the occurrence of recent road pavement problems.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the revised programme for Roadworks, Unallocated, as amened to reflect the reduced allocation, be as listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 15th August 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 95/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

2002/2003 ROAD FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

14 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1171

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In September 2001, Council made application to the Roads & Traffic Authority for Local Road amenity and road safety related projects for 2002/2003, funded through 50:50 arrangements. The RTA has recently advised Council of its approved funding program for 2002/2003. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding, Council is required to provide formal acceptance of the funding allocations.

 

ISSUES:

 

Provision was made in the 2002-2003 budget for the following Local Road amenity and road safety related projects:

 

 

Project Description

Council

Grant

Bike Plan Implementation

$210,000*

$140,000

Roundabout, Clovelly Road/Beach Street Intersection, Clovelly

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Sturt Street/Paton Street Intersection, Kingsford

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Moverly Road/Loch Maree Street Intersection, Maroubra

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Fern Street/Douglas Street Intersection, Clovelly

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Brook Street/Dudley Street Intersection, Coogee

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Boyce Road/Royal Street Intersection, Maroubra.

$50,000

$50,000

Traffic Calming, Storey Street, Percival Street to Royal Avenue, Maroubra

$10,000

$10,000

Kerb Blister, Ferguson Street at Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra

$5,000

$5,000

Kerb Blister, Byron Street south western cnr Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge, Beauchamp Road at Gainford Avenue, Matraville

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge, Cook Street at Frances Street, Randwick

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge, Clovelly Road, Arden Street to Beach Street, Clovelly

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road, Beach Street to Keith Street, Clovelly

$5,000

$5,000

 

 

*This amount for Bike Plan Implementation includes $50,000 contribution from the University of NSW, Council’s allocation is $160,000.

 

The Roads & Traffic Authority has advised that Council has successfully secured funding in the amount of $140,000 under initiatives for Local Road amenity and road safety related projects, for Stage 1 of the Randwick Bicycle Plan. Should Council accept the grant funding, Council’s minimum required contribution to the project would be $140,000 which has been adequately allowed for in Council’s current budget.

 

The remaining projects were unsuccessful in securing funding, and it is proposed that Council’s budgeted allocations to these projects, totalling $340,000, be re-allocated to projects as follows:

 

Project Description

Council

Wombat Crossing, Moverly Road west of Elphinstone Road, Sth Coogee

$30,000

Roundabout, Fern Street/Douglas Street Intersection, Clovelly

$110,000

Traffic Calming, Storey Street, Percival Street to Royal Avenue, Maroubra

$20,000

Kerb Blister, Ferguson Street at Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra

$5,000

Kerb Blister, Byron Street south western cnr Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge, Beauchamp Road at Gainford Avenue, Matraville

$9,900

 

 

Footpath Programme (based on Rate Increase submission to be determined in consultation with the Mayor)

$160,100

 

 

 

 

Total

$340,000

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Sufficient funding for all RTA projects for 2002/2003 has been allowed for in Council’s current budget, and allocations totalling $340,000, to projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2002-2003, should be re-allocated to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 14th August 2002.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council accept the proposed RTA grants for 2002-2003

2.   Council re-allocate the $340,000 allocated for projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2002-2003, to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 14th August 2002.

   

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Proposed RTA Grants 2002/2003

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 96/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

KENSINGTON / WEST KINGSFORD LATM SCHEME - PROPOSED TRIAL IN WEST KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4405

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Works Committee meeting held on 14 May 2002 resolved that:

 

a)         The Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report 46/2002 be received and noted; and

 

b)         Council proceed immediately to conduct a three month trial of the proposed traffic measures in West Kensington by:

 

i)          Referring the trial proposed to the Randwick Traffic Committee for its urgent attention and approval;

 

ii)         Residents being notified of the trial and being advised that Council will continue its consultation with the residents as part of the trial; and

 

iii)         Upon completion of the three month trial a further report be brought back to Council outlining permanent measures.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 11 June 2002 considered a report on the basis of the above resolution of Council.

 

At the meeting Council’s traffic consultant, Chris Stapleton, tabled a draft plan that indicated some options for treating the intersections along Lenthall Street at Virginia Street, McDougall Street and Milroy Avenue.  The Committee noted that there were considerable design difficulties in amending the existing intersections. 

 

A report by Mr Stapleton dated 10 June 2002 was also tabled and copies were distributed to the Committee members with detailed discussion on the three intersections in Lenthall Street.

 

Both the Police and RTA representatives did not support the report’s recommendation.

 

Consequently, the Traffic Committee made the following recommendation:

 

“THAT:
 
1.    The matter be deferred for the following data to be collected:
 
a.    An Origin-Destination survey be undertaken as a matter of urgency to determine the amount of by-pass traffic travelling through the West Kensington area bounded by Lenthall Street – Todman Avenue – Dowling Street.
 
b.    A comparison be taken between the ‘pre’ and ‘post’ Eastern Distributor traffic count figures to determine the effects on traffic dispersion in the area.
 
2.    The above data be brought back to a special meeting as a matter of urgency.”

 

A special meeting of the Randwick Traffic Committee was held on Friday, 2 August 2002.  An extract of the report considered by the Traffic Committee is shown below:

 

“An Origin – Destination survey was carried out on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 and copies of the output data are attached.

 

The O-D Survey involved a full sample count i.e. all vehicles entering or leaving the local area were recorded.  Counts were taken between 7.00am - 9.00am; 11.00am - 1.00pm and 4.00pm – 6.00pm.

 

Entry/exit stations were positioned at the following locations:

 

·    in Virginia Street off Lenthall Street

 

·    in McDougall Street off Lenthall Street

 

·    in Milroy Avenue off Lenthall Street

 

·    in Baker Street off Todman Avenue

 

·    in Carminya Street off Todman Avenue

 

In addition to the above counts, all vehicles that turned left from Lenthall Street into Todman Avenue and turned right from Todman Avenue into Lenthall Street at the signalised intersection were recorded and the results are shown in Table 5.

 

The following figures and tables are attached:

 

Figure 1            O-D Survey Stations

Figure 2a          Morning Peak Period Traffic Flows

Figure 2b          Morning Peak Period Percentage Through Traffic

Figure 3a          Midday Peak Period Traffic Flows

Figure 3b          Midday Peak Period Percentage Through Traffic

Figure 4a          Evening Peak Period Traffic Flows

Figure 4b          Evening Peak Period Percentage Through Traffic

Figure 5            Comparison of Previous traffic counts

 

Table 2 Morning Peak Period OD Matrix

Table 3 Midday Peak Period OD Matrix

Table 4 Evening Peak Period OD Matrix

Table 5 Key Movement Counts Intersection Lenthall St & Todman Ave

 

Council’s traffic consultant has interpreted the results and made the following comments:

 

□    There are a reasonable number of vehicles that enter and depart Virginia Street at Lenthall Street, which might not actually be through trips but trips to local residents/businesses.

 

□    The number of vehicles using the local streets to by-pass the intersection of Lenthall Street and Todman Avenue is almost identical to the number that uses the intersection.

 

□    General traffic flows in the local streets are very low.

 

□    The primary through route during each of the three survey periods is via Baker Street and Virginia Street.

 

□    As a final comment, please note that the flows shown in the OD matrices are two hour counts, which I have halved for inclusion in the prepared Figures.

 

Traffic counts were also collected over a week period from Tuesday, 25 June to midnight Monday, 1 July 2002.  Tube traffic counters were installed at the following locations:

 

·    Virginia Street between Lenthall Street and Ingram Street,

 

·    Macdougall Street between Lenthall Street and Baker Street,

 

·    Baker Street between Todman Avenue and Milroy Avenue

 

The results from the traffic counters are shown below:

 

Location

Average Daily Volume

Est/Nth

Bound

Wst/Sth

Bound

85th %ile Speed

Virginia St

1400vpd

705vpd

695vpd

57 km/h

Macdougall St

330vpd

130vpd

200vpd

60 km/h

Baker St

1670vpd

940vpd

730vpd

42 km/h*

*recorded near roundabout

 

The tube counter data also provided similar traffic volume figures to those recorded in the O-D survey.

 

Overall, the survey indicated that traffic volumes in each of the recorded streets were low and acceptable for a residential street.

 

However, the 85th %ile speeds measured in Virginia Street and Macdougall Street were over the speed limit and this should be considered in the current LATM study.  Although the speed profile at Baker Street was low, this was due to the counter being placed near the roundabout for the purpose of counting vehicles only between Todman Avenue and Milroy Avenue.

 

An additional count can be taken at a more suitable location to mainly record vehicular speeds in Baker Street.

 

A comparison of previous survey figures is shown in the attached Figure 5 and perusal of these traffic volumes indicate that:

 

·    Virginia Street (local road) has not changed since 1995.

 

·    Baker Street (local road) has increased by 260vpd since 1995.  This represents an overall increase of 18% or normal traffic growth of 2.5% per annum.

 

·    Lenthall Street (collector road) has increased by 3,580vpd between 1996 and 2001.  This represents an overall increase of 39% or traffic growth of 7.8% per annum.

 

·    Todman Avenue (sub-arterial road) has increased by 2,390vpd between 1996 and 2001.  This represents an overall increase of 18% or traffic growth of 3.6% per annum.

 

On the basis of the low recorded traffic counts from the O-D survey taken in Virginia Street, McDougall Street, Milroy Avenue, Carminya Street and Baker Street, no action is warranted to partially close Virginia Street, McDougall Street or Milroy Avenue at Lenthall Street.

 

However, Council’s traffic consultant is requested to investigate the feasibility of providing speed reducing devices in Virginia Street, McDougall Street and Baker Street as part of the overall LATM study.

 

A letter dated 3 July 2002 has been received from Dr Terry Lustig on behalf of the Kensington Community Traffic Committee regarding their concern about the proposed trial.  Dr Lustig requested that his letter be referred to the Randwick Traffic Committee for consideration and a copy is attached.

 

At the meeting the Traffic Engineer advised that the survey results had indicated low recorded traffic volumes in the local streets and did not warrant any partial closure of the streets.  However, Council’s traffic consultant would be requested to investigate the provision of speed control devices in the area.

 

Mr Higgins advised that Mrs Grusovin MP has no problem with deferring the matter so that it can be considered as part of the whole study area.

 

The RTA representative advised that in all fairness, the whole area should be dealt with as a whole, not in part.

 

Cr Whitehead advised that the issue of speeding vehicles needs to be addressed.

 

The Police representative requested that speed controls should be installed.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

On the basis of the survey results indicating low recorded traffic volumes in the local streets there is no warrant for any partial closure of the streets.  However, Council’s traffic consultant should be requested to investigate the provision of speed control devices in the area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   No action be taken to partially close Virginia Street, McDougall Street or Milroy Avenue at Lenthall Street.

 

2.   Council’s traffic consultant be requested to investigate the feasibility of providing speed reducing devices in Virginia Street, McDougall Street and Baker Street as part of the overall LATM study.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. OD Study Results

2. Letter from Kensington Community Traffic Committee - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 97/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Moveable Footway Signs (Advertising Sandwich Boards & A-Frame Signs)

 

 

DATE:

7 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1802

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24th July 2001 resolved that –

           

“Council develops a “Moveable Footway Signs” Policy with the aims of ensuring:

           

a)   that moveable footway signs will preserve the existing streetscape and visual environment;

b)   that pedestrian or other traffic is not unduly obstructed by the location of the moveable footway signs;

c)   the activity does not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and nearby premises; and

d)   that the moveable footway signs do not or area unlikely to create a hazard for pedestrians.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Currently Council prohibits the placement of relocatable advertising signage on public lands. Council’s Rangers request the removal of any such advertising signs under the jurisdiction of Section 11 of Roads (General) Regulation 2000 (as quoted below).

 

ROADS (GENERAL) REGULATION 2000 - SECT 11

 

Division 3 Protection of roads and traffic

11. Things placed on and use of roads

(1) A person must not:

(a)  place on a road anything that is likely to injure any person or damage

                  any vehicle, or

(b)  place on a road anything that is likely to restrict or endanger the

use of a road by the public or interfere with public convenience, or

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to:

            (c)  the doing of anything on a road with the consent of the relevant roads

                  authority

 
Within the above legislation the definition of a road refers to the full width of the road reserve, which includes all land between adjacent property boundaries devoted to public travel including footpaths, road shoulders, verges and pavements. First time offenders are requested to remove the offending advertisement with repeat offenders being charged $350.00. In addition to the legislation quoted above, the Local Government Act 1993 requires that approval must be given by the Council for a person or company to; 
Expose or allow to be exposed (whether for sale or otherwise) any article in or on or so as to overhang any part of the road or outside a shop window or doorway abutting the road, or hang an article beneath an awning over the road” (Part E 2  “Approvals” table, Section 68, Local Government Act 1993)

 

Council in August 1998 adopted Development Control Plan “ Outdoor Advertising”. The DCP deals with the design and requirements of various forms of advertising in different zones. In all zones the advertising must relate to specific land uses and be contained within the property. Council’s Outdoor Advertising DCP specifically states that “A-Frames or similar types of advertising will not be permitted” in commercial zones. Thus Council already has a policy which does not permit A-frames and similar types of advertising.

 

In light of Council’s existing DCP which does not permit the erection of A-Framed signs or similar and the Roads Act Regulations prohibiting the placement of anything on the road reserve that may restrict or interfere with public convenience, it is prudent for Council to strengthen its commitment and reinforce the objectives of its previously adopted DCP and manage the roads in accordance with the Roads Act Regulations. If Council were to consider a policy that would permit A-Framed Signs or similar, Council would need to rescind the relevant sections of the Outdoor Advertising DCP, consider a new DCP and establish an approvals process to manage this type of advertising signage

 

Some of the considerations that would need to be resolved should Council decide to establish a Footpath Advertising Development Control Plan are detailed and discussed below:

 

·    Sign height, width and weight

·    Standard locations for the placement of advertising signage

·    Methods by which signage is to be affixed to the ground/other structures

·    Sign content

·    Construction materials

·    Hours of operation

·    Annual/Administration fees and charges

·    Suitability of location

·    Insurance protection for Council

 

The decision of Council to adopt a policy assessing and approving, where applicable, moveable footway signage would require the time and involvement of Council’s Planning Department in the assessment of applications. It would also require constant vigilance by Council’s Rangers in ensuring that all approved signage is located and affixed in accordance with the adopted Development Control Plan. Confusion may also develop where signage is placed without approval amongst Council approved signage.

 

Council owes a duty of care to all road users to ensure that all movements within the road reserve, both along the road pavement and footways, is free from unnecessary hazards and obstructions.

 

Public liability insurance would be required by any applicant proposing to place temporary structures upon the roadway as well as contractual documentation indemnifying Council against any claims that may result from the Council approved signage. However, the provision of public liability insurance on the applicant’s behalf may not always ensure that Council is entirely absolved of responsibility as the approving authority during litigation.

 

Difficulties and/or accidents may also arise where temporary signage is moved from its indented or approved place by either members of the public or during extreme weather events and thereby present a hazard to either pedestrians and/or motorists. A complete risk analysis will be required to be undertaken should Council wish to approve the placement of temporary advertising within the road reserve.

 

The usage and placement of temporary advertising signs will have a noticeable impact upon the streetscape. Consideration during the approval process is required in order to limit “cluttering” of the streetscape that may occur due to excessive advertising. These signs may also restrict the ability of young children or those in wheelchairs to identify any hazards that lie ahead.

 

The use of such signage could only take place in areas where there is deemed to be sufficient room to allow road users to continue without obstruction. However, as the majority of businesses within Randwick City are located within densely populated areas, the collection of signage upon the footway or nature strip may inhibit the flow of pedestrians, particularly the disabled, elderly or those with prams. Whilst the obstruction of pedestrian flow should be considered during the approval process, the granting of applications in one area yet not another may lead to a feeling of bias within the commercial community.

 

The attitude of other Councils towards the placement of advertising signs within road reserve vary between local government areas. Some metropolitan council’s allow the placement of advertising signs within the footway, subject to Council approval and the payment of required fees, whilst others have adopted formal policies to prohibit the use of such signs upon Council land.

 

Of the four metropolitan Councils bordering Randwick City Council, three have adopted formal policies prohibiting the use of moveable footway signage, namely Woollahra City Council, Waverly City Council and South Sydney City Council. The City of Botany Bay is currently developing a Development Control Plan relating to advertising signage and whilst this DCP does not prohibit the use of A-frame signage, their use is not encouraged. Added to this, other metropolitan councils in which the use of moveable footway signage is either prohibited, discouraged or in the process of becoming prohibited are:

 

·    The City of Sydney

·    Lane Cove City Council

·    Mosman Municipal Council

·    Parramatta City Council

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Council is allowed to charge for the administration, approval and leasing of the public road. The fees and charges set by those Councils allowing moveable footpath advertising vary greatly, as prescribed below:

 

·    Marrickville City Council          -           $66.00 application fee +

$6.60 per m2 per week lease

 

·    Hornsby Shire Council  -           $200 annual fee

 

·    Hurstville City Council  -           $100 application fee

$30 “imaging” fee

$100 annual fee

 

CONCLUSION:

 

With rising public liability pressures in an increasingly litigious society it can be seen to be in Council’s best interest to prohibit the placement of temporary structures for advertising within the path of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

 

Similarly, it may be seen to be in the wider community’s best interest to encourage the free movement along Council’s roadways without unnecessary hindrance.

 

Whilst Council is able to recover a small part of the cost of administration through various fees and charges, the costs to Council of policing and ensuring compliance as well as loss of amenity enjoyed by the greater community will far outweigh any benefits received by the commercial advertiser.

 

A proposed policy prohibiting the placement of relocatable advertising signs on public lands is attached for Council’s consideration. This policy reinforces Council’s existing DCP which does not permit the erection of A-Framed signs or similar and the Roads Act Regulations prohibiting the placement of anything on the road reserve that may restrict or interfere with public convenience.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

(1)  The attached “ A-Framed Signs and other forms of relocatable advertising signs on public land under Council’s control” policy be adopted.

 

(2)  Council’s policy register be updated to include this policy.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Policy on Moveable Footway Signs.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Randwick City Council

Policy Register

 

Part

 

Review Date                                                                                         Policy No.

 

POLICY TITLE:

A-FRAMED SIGNS AND OTHER FORMS OF RELOCATABLE ADVERTISING SIGNS ON PUBLIC LAND UNDER COUNCIL’S CONTROL

 

File No.

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To prohibit the placement of A-framed signs and other forms of relocatable advertising signs on public land under Council’s Control.

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That the placement of A-Framed Signs and other forms of relocatable advertising signs on public land under Council’s control is prohibited.

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No.                                                                               Meeting Date:


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 98/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN POLICY

 

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4687

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As a result of concerns about the sharp increase in expenditure by Council necessary to manage the damage caused to private sewerage systems by the roots of its street tree assets and works operations, an efficiency project found that Council had no actual policy in place to deal with this issue.

 

A policy for the management of sewer/stormwater blockages was subsequently drafted, with the aims of minimising the cost to Council and providing an equitable service to all residents/property owners.

 

This policy went to Council at its ordinary meeting held on 23 April, 2002, where it was resolved that the document be placed on public exhibition for a period of six weeks and that at the expiration of that period a report be prepared for consideration by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

Since 1997 the annual cost of damage caused to sewer systems by the roots of Council tree assets has risen from approximately $80,000 in that year to an estimated $305,000 in 2001. These costs include the clearing of sewer pipes, replacement/repair of sewer systems, jet blasting and cctv surveys, footpath/driveway restorations, etc.

 

The main reason for this increase is the general decline in the condition of an aging sewer network throughout the entire City. Most these systems are of terra cotta construction and were built several decades ago.

 

The concrete/mortar joints around the pipes are now cracking and/or disintegrating and this allows tree roots to penetrate into the system. In many cases the pipes themselves have simply cracked or collapsed due to no other factor other than their age.

 

The aggressive nature of the roots of certain established street tree species, most notably Ficus ‘Hillii’, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Casuarina glauca and Harpephyllum caffrum, has also contributed to the increase in the number of claims against Council for damages to private sewerage systems.

 

Exacerbating this situation even further is the fact that word of mouth between residents intimates that Council is often quite favourable towards property owners in its response to sewer blockage issues.

 

The combination of all these elements means that unless this issue is addressed soon, the cost to Council is sure to increase even further into the future.

 

There is, then, an onus on Council to provide an effective and consistent strategy for dealing with blockages and/or damage to sewer or stormwater drains caused by its tree assets or activities, while at the same time minimising any associated costs to Council.

 

At the same time, property owners need to be made aware that it is their responsibility to ensure their sewer systems conform to the appropriate standards and that they are maintained in a serviceable condition. It is an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (s120) for any person to cause or permit waters to be polluted.

 

As the result of a review of its own sewerage/stormwater drain blockage policy in 1997, Waverley Council was able to make significant savings in this area.

 

This included a 27% drop in the number of blockages referred to private plumbers in 1997/98 compared to 1996/97, as well as decreases in the average cost per claim and the total cost of reimbursements to plumbers in that same period. 

 

The stated aims of Randwick City Council’s Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy could therefore be summarised as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In view of the ongoing increase in the number of claims made against Council by property owners for damage allegedly caused to their domestic sewerage systems by the roots of Council street tree assets, it is both timely and appropriate to implement a sewerage/stormwater drain policy.

The aims of this policy should be to minimise the cost to Council associated with damage caused by the roots of its tree assets, while at the same time providing an equitable service to property owners for dealing with blockages and/or damage caused by Council tree assets or activities.

 

To facilitate the objectives of this policy, a 19-point Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage procedure is to be implemented in conjunction with the policy. 

  

It should be noted that at the expiration of the six-week public exhibition period on 5 July, 2002, Council had received no public submissions relating to its proposed Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Randwick City Council adopts the Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage Policy

Sewerage/Stormwater Drain Blockage procedure  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 4 – ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

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

 

 

POLICY TITLE:          SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN BLOCKAGE POLICY

 

 

File No.                      

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

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

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No.:      /                                                         Meeting Date:      /        /2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEWERAGE/STORMWATER DRAIN BLOCKAGE PROCEDURE

 

 

1.         If blockage/damage occurs within Council business hours (8.30am-4.30pm – Monday-Friday) and reasonable investigation by the property owner/agent indicates the blockage/damage has been caused by the roots of a tree asset on Council property, Council must be notified  on (9399 0999). Outside these hours Council’s after hours service centre is to be contacted (9963 1665).

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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


 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


 

AGREEMENT

 

 

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

 

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

 

have reported:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Signed: …………………………………………………..

 

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

 

RELEASE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Signed: …………………………………………………


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 99/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

CENTENARY TREE PLANTING PROJECT

 

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3669, 98/S/0973

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Civic Awards committee meeting held on Tuesday, 25 June, 2002, resolved that a report be prepared detailing the cost and location of the planting of 100 Angophora costatas (Sydney Red gums) in Anzac Parade, Little Bay, and that a copy of the Specification for that planting also be provided in the report.

 

ISSUES:

 

Initial discussions regarding a potential Centenary tree planting project took place between Council’s Tree Management Officer and then-Communications Manager in May, 2001.

 

A number of prospective sites were inspected and Council’s Tree Management Officer recommended that Anzac Parade would be the most appropriate site. He also suggested that, in line with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan, it might be appropriate to symbolically plant out both sides of the roadway with 100 Angophora costatas.

 

These are an Australian native tree species that generally reach impressive proportions and they would certainly provide a dramatic avenue effect once they reached maturity. 

 

At the time there was tentative agreement to use the Anzac Parade site, and subsequently, the plant stock was ordered and delivered to Council’s nursery in anticipation of planting being undertaken.

 

No further discussion was held in relation to the selected location and it was assumed that the Anzac Parade location had been agreed to by all interested parties.

 

By September 2001 the trees were becoming pot bound and were in danger of not being able to be used for any planting exercise and a decision was made to plant them out along the section of Anzac Parade which had initially been discussed.

 

The trees were planted out in late September/early October, 2001, as per Council’s tree planting Specification and a copy of that Specification is attached. The total cost to supply, plant and maintain the subject trees for a period of six months was $5,346.00.

 

The General Manager’s report to Council dated 20 June, 2002, states that the total cost of this planting operation was $45,346.00. This is obviously a typographical error and it has overstated the actual amount by $40,000.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although several of the Angophora costatas planted along the referred-to section of Anzac Parade have had to be replaced as a result of vandalism or death, the majority are in a healthy condition and should attain a height at maturity of approximately 10-12 metres with a canopy spread of around 8-10 metres.

 

In an effort to redress the apparent lack of acknowledgement and ceremony afforded the planting of these trees when they were originally planted, it would be entirely appropriate to consider planting out the central median strip along Anzac Parade adjacent to where these trees are planted with a similar number of the same tree species.

 

This would not only allow Council the opportunity to afford the Centenary of Federation a much higher profile but any such planting operation would complement the planting that has already been undertaken and would ensure an even more imposing and significant streetscape once these trees reach maturity.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That 100 super-advanced Angophora costatas be purchased by Council and planted out along the central median strip of Anzac Parade, Little Bay, adjacent to where the existing trees of the same species are growing and that a suitable commemorative plaque be installed at the site upon completion of the planting.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of Randwick City Council's tree planting  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council


SPECIFICATION

 

TREE PLANTING -

 

1.         Plants shall be supplied by Council as follows:

 

As per planting plans issued for

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

 

If the Contractor considers there is something wrong with a plant supplied by Council he should advise the Supervising Officer before planting. The act of planting is an acceptance by the Contractor of the quality of the plant.

 

Locations of planting holes will be marked on the kerb line or nature strip as per the planting plan issued.

 

Wherever possible, the following distances should be adhered to when undertaking tree planting operations:

 

-     Distance from road intersections (arterial and sub-arterial roads) – 7 metres

 

-     Distance from road intersections (collector and local roads) – 5 metres

 

-     Distance from road intersections (approaching traffic flow) – 10 metres

 

-     Distance from driveways (approaching traffic flow) – 7 metres

 

-     Distance from driveways (passenger preferred side) – 3 metres

 

-     Distance between trees             – attaining up to five metres at maturity – 5 metres

- between five-eight metres at maturity – 7.5 metres

- over eight metres at maturity – 10 metres

 

-     Distance from kerb (where practicable) – 1 to 1.5 metres

 

-     Distance from footpath (where practicable) - 1 to 1.5 metres

 

-     Distance from light/power poles – 4 metres

 

-     Distance from bus shelters (traffic approach side) – 3 metres

 

-     Distance from bus shelters (signage side) – 5 metres

 

Planting should be undertaken as near to the middle of the property frontage as possible to allow for the possible future construction of a driveway, if none exists.

 

All planting work shall be completed within ................. weeks from the date of acceptance of contract.

 

2.         The Contractor shall be responsible for the planting of trees and maintenance as follows:

 

A. PLANTING

 

Excavate a hole as nominated in the attached detail. Break up the base and sides of the hole a further 100mm with, for example, a pick or crowbar. Planting holes to be inspected by the Supervising Officer prior to planting and back filling.

 

Allow for the saw cutting of existing concrete and bitumen pavement and the removal of the pavement where necessary.

 

Allow for the removal of paving bricks, where necessary, in a manner so that the pavers can be used in reinstating the paving to the precise planting hole size including the soldier course for edge restraint.

 

The Supervising Officer will mark the exact planting hole location before excavation commences. Dimensions of planting holes as specified in attached planting detail.

 

Note: Excavation is measured in other than rock. It is not intended that rock be excavated to plant trees. If rock is encountered, the direction of the Supervising Officer is to be sought.

 

Note:   The Contractor shall take all the precautions considered necessary to locate and avoid damage to property and all underground service lines when excavating tree planting holes. Any damage caused to property or service lines shall be rectified at the Contractor's expense.

 

Arrange for removal and disposal of excavated material from the site.

 

Existing trees will be removed where indicated (by Council), including stump grinding, to 200mm minimum depth.


Remove plant from container, slightly tease the root ball and then place into hole. Top of root ball should be planted level with existing soil.

 

Backfill the hole, lightly firming down in 150mm layers. Soil mix shall be:

 

80% site soil

20% humus

 

Humus for the mix to be supplied by Randwick City Council. Humus to be picked up by Contractors as arranged with Supervising Officer.

 

Soil mix shall have a pH range of 5.5 to 6.5 and shall be free of noxious weeds and toxic materials detrimental to plant growth.

 

Mulch the soil surrounding the tree to a diameter of 500mm all around the tree trunk and to a depth of 75mm. Do not heap mulch around the trunk.

Mulch to be supplied by Randwick City Council. Mulch to be picked up by Contractors as arranged with Supervising Officer.

 

Stake the trees as shown on the attached detail using 2 x 50mm x 50mm x 1500mm hardwood stakes. Tree to be tied with 50mm wide hessian tie stapled to stakes.

 

Water in well after planting. The Supervising Officer shall inspect and approve the completed work.

 

The site shall be left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of the works. Where stockpiles of materials are temporarily stored, they shall be barricaded to ensure public safety.

 

If Council is of the opinion that a work site is left in an unsafe state, Council staff may carry out such works as necessary to make the site safe. The Contractor will then be liable for all costs incurred by Council in carrying out this work.

 

Where rock or underground services are found during excavation such that a tree cannot be planted, the Contractor shall backfill the hole, compact and re-lay new turf, paving, etc, to match surrounding surface levels to the satisfaction of the Supervising Officer.

 

B. MAINTENANCE

 

Allow for twice weekly watering of trees as per issued plan for a period of 26 weeks from the date of planting. Each tree shall receive required water to ensure healthy, vigorous growth.

 

The Contractor shall allow for weeding, adjustment of stakes and ties, minor pruning work and reinstatement of mulch during the maintenance period.

 

Note:   The Contractor shall be responsible for the replacement of any plants that die due to a lack of water or incorrect planting techniques other than those specified.

 

All works shall be carried out in accordance with this Specification and to the direction and satisfaction of the Supervising Officer.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Savage

DIRECTOR – ASSET & INFRASTRUCTUR SERVICES

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 29/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ALTERATIONS, ETC.

 

 

DATE:

13 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1238

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Following a recent review by staff of the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, in respect to the Acts and Regulations under which delegations are effective, it has been determined that the Policy needs some minor updating due to changes in legislation and NSW  Government Departmental names.

 

ISSUES:

 

In some cases Acts of Parliament have been superseded by other Acts, new Acts of Parliament have been proclaimed or Government Departments’ names have been altered. Detailed hereafter are the relevant reference numbers in the Policy and the alterations required:

 

(a)        RA 001 – Acts & Regulations

 

            (i) in (e):

            O Delete: Occupational Heath and Safety Act 1983 & Regulations thereunder.

                P Insert:  Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations thereunder.

 

            (ii) in (v)

            O Delete: Waste Minimisation & Management Act, 1995.

                P Insert:  Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Act 2001.

 

                (iii) new (z)

P Insert: Strata Schemes Management Act, 1996.

               

(b)           RL 013 – Local Approvals, Consents and Certificates – Assessment of Details  

 

O Delete: “Director of Planning and Environment.”

                P Insert:  “Director Planning and Community Development.”

(c)        RN 001 – Notices and Regulatory Orders

 

            (i) in (b):

                P Insert:  Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001.

 

(d)           RP 069 – Planning Control – Strata Subdivisions

 

            O Delete: “Strata Titles Act” (twice).

                P Insert:  “Strata Schemes Management Act 1996” (twice)

 

(e)           RP 070 – Planning Control – NSW Director General of Urban Affairs and Planning Delegations

 

O Delete: “Urban Affairs & Planning” in heading and text.

                P Insert:  “Planning NSW” in heading and text.

 

(f)            RP 110 – Private Property – Entry & Inspection

 

P Insert: 

·      Strata Schemes Management Act 1996; and

·      Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Act 2001

 

(g)        RT 021 – Traffic Matters

 

O Delete in preamble: “Traffic Authority Act 1976”.

O Delete in (d): “Planning & Environment Department”

                P Insert in preamble: “Traffic Administration Act 1998”.

P Insert in (d): “Planning & Community Development Department”.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to the phasing out and/or introduction of new legislation by the NSW Government, it is necessary for the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, Delegation of Authority - General Manager and staff, to be updated.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the alterations to the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, Delegation of Authority, as detailed in the Director Governance, Management and Information Services Report No. 29/2002 be adopted;

 

(b)        That pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, and subject to compliance with all Council policies and lawful directions made by Council or any public authority, Council hereby delegates to the General Manager authority to exercise or perform on behalf of Council all the revised powers, authorities, duties and functions as detailed in the Director’s Report No. 29/2002; and

 

(c)        That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 51/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

6 EASTBOURNE AVENUE, CLOVELLY

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

236/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 236/2001 for 6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 8 August 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans.  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

8 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D0236/2001/GD

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to erect a rear first floor emergency fire escape.

PROPERTY:

 6 Eastbourne Ave Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr Plaister

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Ordinary Council meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Freda Backes, Dominic Sullivan, Paul Tracey.

 

The application for a dual occupancy was approved by Council at its meeting on 9 September 2001. The current application seeks to modify this consent by way of erecting an emergency fire escape.

 

The main issue relates to the privacy impact of new stairs on the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of an external emergency fire escape to the eastern boundary of the approved dual occupancy. The stair will provide emergency access from the first floor to the ground floor with entrance to this stair off an approved balcony.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located at 6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly. Eastbourne Avenue runs along the northern side of the Clovelly Bay inlet and swimming beach.  Its northern side is developed with residential properties which look out over the bay to the ocean and across to ‘Wedding Cake Island’ and the headland at north Maroubra.

 

The site has an area of 430.4sqm and a street frontage of 12.73m.  It is presently developed with a dwelling house with a double garage at street level and a single storey residence above.  The house has a front terrace over the roof of the garage.

 

Eastbourne Avenue is developed with dwelling houses, attached dual occupancies, and multi-unit buildings.  The two multi-unit buildings dwellings are situated at each end of the street, while the main part of the street comprises detached houses and dual occupancies (‘semis’). The predominant building form involves garages along the street frontage, with one or two storey dwellings above.  Most have terraces over the garages and window/decks to the levels above taking advantage of the sea views in a south to south-east direction.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

In November 1998 an application was lodged (DA1139/98) for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of dual occupancy. This application was refused by Council and was the subject of an appeal with the land and Environment Court. The appeal was dismissed in November 1999.

 

A new application was lodged on the 23 March 2001 in response to issues raised by Council in the original assessment and in the appeal proceedings. Council approved this application on the 9 October 2001. The current application before Council is a modification to this consent.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

N & J Morris

16 Shackel Ave

 

·    Unattractive alterations to the development.

 

Comment

 

The proposed stairs are external to the development so as to provide for emergency fire escape in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. The stairs will be constructed in materials and finishes which are consistent with the approved built form such that the impact will be minimised. The stairs will not be visible from the street and will be concealed from most of the adjoining properties as the structure is to the rear of the site and does not extend beyond the first floor

 

·    Unwelcome source of activity

 

Comment

 

The proposed structure is an emergency fire escape, which would not be used as a primary access to the first floor occupancy. Primary access is available to the first floor from within the building. It is anticipated that the use of the stairs will be infrequent and as such will not generate an unacceptable level of activity.

 

·    Stairs will generate noise to adjoining properties.

 

Comment

 

The intention of the stairs is for emergency use and as such it is unlikely that the infrequent use will generate an unacceptable level of noise to adjoining properties.

 

·          The stairs encroach on preferred setbacks

 

Comment

 

The setback of the stairs from the eastern boundary will be 900mm which is consistent with the preferred solution contained within DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy.

 

·          The stairs will replace planter boxes required for privacy

 

Comment

 

A section of the planter boxes proposed in the original application will be replaced with the proposed stair platform however it is considered that a new privacy screen will sufficiently address privacy concerns of adjoining property owners. The requirement to privacy screen will be included as a condition of consent.

 

Petition received from:

 

MJ Levinson        4A Eastbourne

J Doyle                 12 Eastbourne

C & M Larkin      16 Eastbourne

12 Shackel            not noted

10 Eastbourne      not noted

P & L McDonald 4 Eastbourne

 

·    Privacy Concerns

 

Comment

 

The proposed stairs are proposed for emergency use only and as such will not constitute a primary access route. As such it is considered that the use of the stair will not result in overlooking to adjoining properties. Stairs result in a minimal opportunity for overlooking as the structure is primarily an access route.

 

5.2  Support

 

No letters of support were received in relation to this proposal.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

The application was referred for building comments, no objection was raised and standard conditions of consent were imposed.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The proposed site being less than 4000sqm does not require a masterplan.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

The proposed works are of a minor nature and are located at the rear of the site, which will not impact on the Foreshore Protection  Area.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

NA

The proposed new stairs will not detract from the built form or design of the development. The materials and finishes will be conditioned to be consistent with the approved development.

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed new stairs will comply with the preferred solution for side setbacks being no closer than 900mm from the eastern boundary.

 

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same

The proposed works relate to providing compliance with the Building Code of Australia in relation to fire safety. The addition of an emergency fire escape will not alter the nature of the dual occupancy development, as is substantially the same as originally approved.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Impact on adjoining development

 

The proposed structure is located in close proximity to the eastern side boundary of the site however the setback complies with the preferred solution. The structure is an emergency access route such that the use of the area is minimal and unlikely to result in an unacceptable level of activity and therefore privacy impact.

 

The stairs are going to be located where planter boxes were originally proposed to provide for privacy screening. To address any concerns for overlooking from the first floor balcony, privacy screens are proposed to the eastern side of the balcony to achieve a maximum height of 1500mm. The applicant has agreed to the addition of a privacy screen to reduce the opportunity for overlooking into the adjoining property to the east.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification will result in an emergency fire escape being erected to satisfy fire safety provisions of the Building Code of Australia for the approved dual occupancy. The structure will result in infrequent use, as it is not intended as a primary access route to the first floor occupancy. As a result of the frequency of use and nature of the structure being one flight of stairs, overlooking is not considered to be a significant issue of concern.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 236/01 ‘A’ on property 6 Eastbourne Ave Clovelly in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No 1 to read:

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered and titled:

 

i)        J17-00 A-01 (A) – Site Plan

ii)       J17-00 A-02 (A) – Lower Ground Floor Plan

iii)      J17-00 A-03 (A) – Ground Floor Plan

iv)      J17-00 A-04 (A) – First Floor Plan

v)       J17-00 A-05 (A) – Rear Yard Plan

vi)      J17-00 A-06 (A) – Front Elevation (to Eastbourne Avenue)

vii)     J17-00 A-07 (A) – Side Elevation (East)

viii)    J17-00 A-08 (A) – Rear Elevation (North)

ix)      J17-00 A-09 (A) – Side Elevation (West)

x)       J17-00 A-10 (A) – Section A

 

dated July 2001 and date stamped received by Council on 17 August 2001, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, as may be amended by the following conditions and as amended by plans dated J17-00 A-01(B), 03 (D), 04(E), A-07(E) and 08(D) dated July 2001 and stamped received on the 20 June 2002.”

 

Include condition No. 47

 

47.   A privacy screen shall be provided to the eastern end of the platform of the proposed stairs at a height of 1500mm and to be of louvered design to protect the amenity of the property to the east of the subject site. Details of this privacy screen are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

 

Include condition No. 48

 

48.   The proposed external stair shall be used as emergency fire escape only and is not be used as a primary point of access for the first floor occupancy.

 

Include condition No. 49

 

49.   The proposed external stair shall be of a design and finish consistent and in keeping with the approved built form and finishes of the dual occupancy development.

 

Include advisory condition No. A7

 

A7   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 D1                        -           Construction of stairs   

 

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.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 






 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 52/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SHOP 9, 262-266 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE  

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0464/2002/GN

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 464/2002 for Shop 9, 262-266 Arden Street, Coogee for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 7 August 2002.

2.  A4 Configuration Plan  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

7 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0464/2002/

 

PROPOSAL:

 Use existing shop premises as a Real Estate Agency

PROPERTY:

 Shop 9/262-266 Arden Street, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Home Property Group t/a Laing & Simmons

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Judy Greenwood, Murray Matson, Marjery Whitehead.

 

The proposal involves a change of use from a pizza restaurant to a real estate agency. 

 

The main issue for consideration is the potential demand for on street parking that may be generated by the proposal.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

Formal consent is sought to change the use of the premises from a pizza restaurant to a real estate agency with new signage over existing awning signage, new glazed shopfront and internal fitout.

 

It should be noted that the work subject of this application have already been  carried out without Council consent and cannot be approved retrospectively.

 

The hours of operation proposed are 9:00am to 5:30pm Monday – Friday and Saturday 9:00am – 12:00pm.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Arden Street between Havelock Avenue near the intersection with Waltham Street in Coogee.  The site is occupied by a two-storey brick residential flat building with retail/commercial activity on the ground floor and residential units above having a site area of 447sqm.  The site is located within a strip of business premises in Arden Street, which is surrounded by commercial/residential developments, the majority being residential flat buildings.

 

The site is now currently used as a Real Estate Agency and has been operating without Council consent.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Several applications have been lodged previously for the following uses:

Coin-operated laundry and dry cleaning, a pizza shop, mixed business and delicatessen.  The last approved application was in 1972 for a restaurant and for the sale of take-away foods.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

David Aquilina of 260 Arden Street, Coogee

 

Opposes the DA for the following reasons:

 

·  A BMW, which is owned by one of the owner/operators of the real estate agency, is quite often parked illegally.  The signpost shows a two-hour limit for parking.

·  The owner/operators or other residents of the subject premise park illegally and in excess of the two-hour limit sign. (provided two photos, which shows evidence of the illegal parking).

·  Safety concerns in Waltham Street that may result due to parking problems and lack of enforcement of the parking rules.

·  Believes that Waltham Street is the street most affected by the proposal and that insufficient notification was sent to this street.  Requesting that all residents of Waltham Street should be notified of the proposal to fairly assess the application and notification should be extended.

 

E.J. Aquilina of 260 Arden Street, Coogee

 

Opposes the DA for following reasons:

 

·  Development proposed has been operating without consent for 4-5 months.

·  Real estate agency will generate a flow of traffic and a need to park their vehicles where parking is limited to 2 hours (Waltham Street).

·  Since the real estate use has been operating (without council approval), she and her husband have noticed the parking situation worsen with more cars and less street parking.  Furthermore she has noticed that the owners have been parking without a permit holder and illegally on the corner of Waltham and Arden Street.  She’s concerned that their cars will dangerously restrict vision when exiting from Waltham Street to go into Arden Street and when parked illegally their cars are never booked.

·  Parking is extremely problematic in the area, her and her husband own vehicles and are permit holders, who rely on on-street parking and have only on 3 occasions seen parking inspectors.

 

Comment:

 

It appears that the proposed Real Estate Agency has been operating without development consent for several months. Council’s Regulatory Section has served an order under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 directing the applicant to cease operation as a Real Estate Agency (Laing & Simmons), dated 30th April 2002.  In response to the order, the applicant lodged the subject development application seeking authorisation of the current use.

 

The proposal merely involves a change of use and as such it is not envisaged that there will be any significant increased demand for carparking.

 

In respect to the level of notification undertaken, thirty-four nearby property owners were notified.  It is considered this level of notification is sufficient for an application seeking approval for a change of use.

 

The issue regarding parking inspectors is enforcement issue that is beyond the scope of the development assessment process. 

 

5.2  Support

 

No letter of support was received in relation to this proposal.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was referred for building comments, no objection was raised and standard conditions of consent were imposed.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The proposed site being less than 4000sqm did not require a master plan.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed use may be permitted by virtue of Clause 35 of the LEP which states: -

 

        Clause 35 of the Randwick LEP – Business premises in residential zones

 

Despite clauses 10, 11, and 12, the Council may grant consent to development of land within No. 2A, 2B, 2C for the purpose of business premises, but only if the Council is satisfied that the proposed use:

 

i.    is to be situated in a building, or part of a building, that was originally designed or constructed (or both) for use as business premises, and

 

ii.  the total floor space to be used as business premises does dot exceed 50 square metres.

 

Purpose:  To provide for the establishment and continued operation of small scale business development in residential zones.

 

The total floor space area of the proposed Real Estate Agency is 46.8m2 and the building was purpose built for commercial activity

 

8.1  DCP - Parking

Council’s DCP - Parking requires carparking to be provided on-site to cater for additional demands.  In this instance the site has no provision for on-site parking, and given the carparking requirement for the previous restaurant (1 space for 40m2 GFA up to 80m2) is greater than the current proposal (1 space for 50m2 GFA), no  additional demand for carparking is generated by the proposed change of use.

 

The applicant has advised that the majority of the business is conducted off site at the customer’s homes.

 

It is considered that the proposal would involve fewer vehicular movements and impact on available on street parking less than the previous use of the premises as a restaurant.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1   Impact on adjoining development

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of Clause 35 of Randwick LEP and complies with the relevant assessment criteria of the DCP.  Even though the zoning of the subject site is residential 2C, the property to, which the Development Application relates has been used for retail/commercial purposes since its construction.  The proposed use is not considered likely to result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

With respect to the hours of operation from 9:00am to 5:30pm Monday – Friday and Saturday 9:00am – 12:00pm it is considered that the hours proposed are reasonable and are not expected to cause any nuisance to the surrounding area.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 464/02 for Use existing shop premises as a Real Estate Agency at Shop 9/262-266 Arden Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:  -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans unnumbered, undated and received by Council on 20th May 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The hours of operation for the business are to be restricted to:

 

            Monday to Friday         9:00am – 5:30pm

            Saturday                       9:00am – 12:00pm

           

            No changes are to be made to the hours of operation without Council consent.

 

3.         This consent only applies to the use of the building for the purpose of a Real Estate Agency.  This approval does not cover any associated building works.

 

4.         The use shall be restricted to the area designated on the plans.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the relevant pollution control criteria and to maintain reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity to the locality:

 

5.         The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

7.         The storage of boxes, cartons, pallets, goods or any other material relating to operation of the business other than a commercial garage bin must be wholly contained within the premises.

 

8.         No goods, or machinery or advertising signs are to be placed on Council’s footway at any time.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plan

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


  

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 53/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Affixing of Council's Seal to documentation - Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care 

 

 

DATE:

25 July, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1999 (Part 2)

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 43 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the following document:

 

1.         Funding agreement with the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care in respect of 12 months funding of $142,292 towards Council’s Community Development Officer, Aged Services and salaries for Council’s two employees of the Home Maintenance and Modification Service.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 43 of the Meetings Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorizing the affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to:

 

1.         Funding agreement with the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and ancillary documents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LIZ COLLYER

ACTING DIRECTOR

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CO-ORDINATOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 54/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Amended Master Plan for 100 - 120 King Street, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3827

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 10 July 2001, Council adopted a Master Plan for aged-care housing for the site comprising of Lot 201 and Lot 202 in DP 879576 subject to a number of variations. Lot 202, on the corner of King and Dangar Street, is owned by the Sir Moses Montefiore Home Board of Management. Lot 201 was formerly owned by the State Transit Authority (STA) with which the Home had entered into an agreement to purchase subject to the provision of 60 carparking spaces on-site for the use of STA staff. The adopted Master Plan included the provision of 60 carparking spaces as required by the STA.

 

The Home has since advised that it did not proceed with the purchase of Lot 201 and has submitted the subject amended Master Plan for a similar aged-care housing development on Lot 202 only. It should be noted that a new Master Plan for multi-unit housing was submitted by De La Vega Architects for Lot 201, which was subsequently adopted by Council on 9 April 2002.

 

The report recommends that Council adopt the amended Master Plan for the aged care housing facility at 100-120 King Street, Randwick.

 

2.         THE AMENDED MASTER PLAN:

 

The adopted Masterplan for the Montefiore site provided for the following facilities on-site:

 

100 self-care units

480 aged care beds 

1,200 sqm  day care centre

340 seat synagogue

350 sqm  retail space

Ancillary facilities for use of residents (including dining hall, lounges, library, therapy centre and hydrotherapy pool)

Administrative facilities

 

 

Under the amended Master Plan, the following facilities will be provided:

 

60 self-care units

277 aged care beds

244 seat synagogue

825 sqm day care centre

350 sqm retail area

330 sqm function room

Ancillary facilities for use of residents (including dining hall, lounges, library, therapy centre and hydrotherapy pool)

Administrative facilities

 

Under the amended Master Plan a number of self-care units along King Street will be deleted from the adopted Master Plan as a result of the deletion of Lot 201 from the proposal. Furthermore, the size of the synagogue and day care centre has been reduced. Apart from these changes, the amended proposal will have a similar layout to that in the adopted Master Plan which comprises three storey buildings for self-care units along King Street, a two-storey section containing aged care facilities along Dangar Street, two to three storey buildings containing aged care facilities fronting Govett Lane increasing to four storeys internally towards the rear. 

 

Under the amended Master Plan, the King Street access road will be shifted to the new western boundary abutting Lot 201. Apart from this, the amended Master Plan proposes a similar access arrangement as the adopted Master Plan which essentially comprises access via Dangar Street and King Street with access points linked by an internal service road in serving the proposed on-site carparks and service facilities.

 

The amended Master Plan will result in a reconfiguration of car parking on-site which will now be provided in three basement and ground level carparks, one below the aged care section close to Govett Lane, another below the retail/function room component towards Dangar Street, and the third below the self-care units fronting King Street.

 

The amended Masterplan now comprises the following two stages of development instead of the original three:

 

Stage 1:            The aged care facilities, synagogue and function rooms fronting Dangar Street; the day care centre fronting King Street; and the aged care facility fronting Govett Lane and the self-care facility fronting King Street. 

 

Stage 2:      The self-care facility fronting King Street (being the remainder of the development following the exclusion of Lot 201, the STA site, from the proposed development). 

 

It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a Development Application (DA No. 551/2002) for Stage 1 of the proposed development.

 

In summary, the proposal under the amended Master Plan will not differ significantly from that of the adopted Master Plan with the differences between the two Master Plans minor.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The amended Master Plan relates to Lot 202 in DP 879576 located on the northern side of King Street to the west of Dangar Street and south of Govett Lane. The site has a frontage to King Street of approximately 178.8m to the south; a frontage to Dangar Street of approximately 164.5m to the east; and a frontage to Govett Lane of approximately 175.12m. The western boundaries adjoins the STA site comprising Lot 201 and the University of New South Wales land.

 

The site that is the subject of the amended Masterplan has an area of 2.93 ha and has a fall of 8m from east to west. It currently contains three disused buildings fronting Govett Lane, two of which are partially demolished and one comprising a heritage item known as the “Institute Building”, and a number of demountable buildings off King Street that are currently used as a temporary child-care centre.

 

Development in the locality is characterised predominantly by a mix of residential and institutional uses. To the west is Lot 201 formerly owned by the STA and currently the subject of an adopted Master Plan and a development application for a multi-unit housing development (DA No. 540/2002), to the north-west is the UNSW Press building, to the north on the opposite side of Govett Lane are single and double storey dwelling houses fronting Govett Lane, to the east on the opposite side of Dangar Street are tennis courts that form part of the University of NSW land which has an adopted Master Plan for multi-unit housing, and an existing multi-unit housing development, and to the south are a single and double storey dwelling houses fronting King Street and a pocket of existing retail shops on the corner of King Street and Church Street.

 

4.         MASTERPLAN REQUIREMENTS:

 

Under the provisions of Amendment No 17 to Randwick LEP 1998, a Council adopted master plan is required prior to a consent authority determining a development application for areas greater than 4,000 square metres within the City of Randwick except for sites which have been granted a waiver under Clause 40A(2) of the Randwick LEP. The Master Plan was adopted for the subject site and the adjoining Lot 201 on 10 July 2002. The current application seeks to amend the adopted Master Plan by deleting the adjoining Lot 201 from the proposed development and introducing minor accompanying changes to the proposed development as described in Section 2 above. 

 

5.         STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

Under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the subject site is zoned Residential 2C for the section to the south-west fronting King Street, and Residential 2B in the eastern section fronting Dangar Street and King Street. A floor space ratio of 0.9:1 applies to the Residential 2C zone and 0.65: 1 to the Residential 2B zone of the subject site. There is a building height limit of 12m in the residential 2C zone and 9.5m in the Residential 2B zone of the subject site.

 

The proposed aged care facility will have regard to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 5, which provides detailed development criteria and design standards to guide and control development for housing of older people or people with a disability. Consequently, assessment of the Masterplan has been made with the statutory requirements of SEPP 5 in mind, which prevent Council from refusing a SEPP 5 application on the grounds of, amongst other things, a building height of 8m or less and an FSR of 0.75:1 or less. The policy also provides for support facilities and services, which must be met by housing for older people.

 

Apart from the provisions of SEPP 5, the relevant requirements, controls and standards the DCP – Multi-unit Housing, and DCP No. 18 have also been used to evaluate the performance of the Masterplan.

 

6.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION:

 

The master plan was exhibited from 9 July to 23 July 2002, following advertisements in the local newspaper, notification of local residents and erection of site notices.

 

One submission was received from Ms Louise Ryan, of 63 Dangar Street, Randwick, objecting to the fact that the notification of the amended Master Plan occurred subsequent to that of the development application for Stage 1 of the subject site. This issue is addressed in Section 8.14 of this report.

 

One submission from Mr Richard Harvey, of 89-91 Dangar Street, Randwick, was received in support of the proposed development whilst raising the following issues:

 

§ Recycling of material on site should not be permitted as this will cause noise and dust

§ Addition of a function room does not accord with original master plan

§ Additional vehicular traffic

 

These issues are addressed in Sections 8.4, 8.12.2 and 8.13 of this report.

 

7.         TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

 

7.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

Council’s Building Surveyor advises that no objections in relation to building and construction matters are raised in relation to the amended Masterplan subject to assessment of these matters in the development application for the proposal.

 

7.2       Landscape Comments

 

Council’s Landscape Architect advises that no objections in relation to landscaping issues are raised in relation to the amended Masterplan subject to assessment of these matters in the development application for the proposal.

 

7.3       Drainage Comments

 

Council’s Development Engineer advises that onsite detention of stormwater is required for the proposed development. The existing Council controlled stormwater drainage pipeline that burdens the development site is proposed to be relocated. Details of the location of this pipe and its relationship with the proposed buildings have not been shown on the Master Plan application.

 

There is a localised low point pit adjacent to the development site in Dangar Street and Govett Lane. The applicant will be required to submit a 1 in 100 year flood study to determine an appropriate overland flow route through the site and determine the habitable floor levels for the proposed buildings and the crest level of any low level driveways. Negotiation with the adjacent property owner of Lot 201 for provision of a suitable joint overland flow path will be required.

 

The development engineer advises that the above issues can be addressed in future development applications for the site. The applicant has included a stormwater and hydraulic assessment with eth current development application for the site.

 

7.4       Traffic Comments

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer advises that the traffic comments provided for the original Master Plan, which essentially recommended traffic calming measures and roadworks for the proposed development, will also be applicable to the amended proposal as the traffic impacts will generally remain the same.

 

The amended Masterplan, together with the development application for Stage 1 of the proposed development, has been referred to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Development. The SRDAC advises that it raises no objections to the proposed development subject to the provision of various traffic management and parking measures.

 

8.         DISCUSSION AND ISSUES:

 

8.1       Density

 

The maximum FSR applicable to the Residential 2B zone is 0.65:1, while the F.S.R for the Residential 2C zoning is 0.9:1.

 

The adopted Master Plan proposed an FSR of 1.08 : 1. This original FSR was based on conceptual floor plans and drawings accompanying the original Master Plan at the time. With the benefit of detailed drawings for the proposed development (especially in relation to Development Application No. 551/2002 for Stage 1), the applicant advises that the FSR for the proposed development is now more accurately 1.2:1, comprising the following:

 

§ Stage 1 (in D.A. No. 551/2002) : 27,400 sqm

 

§ Stage 2 (i.e., the self care units along King Street) : 8,000 sqm

 

The increase in FSR in the amended Master Plan arises primarily as a result of the reduction in the overall site area with the deletion of Lot 201 from the proposal. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 does not include any specific FSR requirements. However, clause 14 of the SEPP states that a consent authority cannot refuse a SEPP 5 application if the FSR is 0.75:1 or less and the facility is within 400m of a public transport facility.

 

The increase in FSR under the amended Master Plan will be 0.12, which is considered minimal and not expected to result in any perceptible increase in visual bulk and scale. The bulk and scale of the proposed development will be compatible with the existing height, bulk and scale of development along King Street, Dangar Street and Govett Lane and will allow for the required minimum solar access and privacy requirements both internally and externally.

 

The applicant advises that the absolute height of the proposed development under the amended Master Plan will now be lower than that originally proposed in the adopted Master Plan (see next section below). Furthermore, as indicated in the assessment of the adopted Master Plan, the proposed FSR is considered acceptable as it will assist in meeting the demand for aged care housing amongst the Jewish community, which is expected to grow significantly between 2006 and 2011 (based on advice given by the applicant from a report prepared by Dr Gary Eckstein entitled “Sydney Jewish Community Demographic Profile” dated May 1999).

 

8.2       Height

 

The applicant advises that, in terms of absolute height, the amended Masterplan will result in lower building heights than those in the adopted Master Plan, which compare as follows:

 

Dangar Street Elevation

 

Adopted Master Plan                           Amended Master Plan

(to pitching point of roof)                      (to pitching point of roof)

RL 51.8                                               RL 50.5

2 storeys above street level                   2 storeys above street level

 

King Street Elevation

 

Adopted Master Plan                           Amended Master Plan

(to pitching point of roof)                      (to pitching point of roof)

RL 54.8                                               RL 53.7

3 storeys above street level                   3 storeys above street level

 

Govett Lane Elevation

 

Adopted Master Plan                           Amended Master Plan

(to pitching point of roof)                      (to pitching point of roof)

RL 54.19                                             RL 53.7

3 storeys above street level                   3 storeys above street level

 

The number of storeys for buildings under the amended Masterplan will be similar to that in the adopted Masterplan.

 

It should be noted that the setback of all proposed buildings to the street frontages under the amended Master Plan is consistent with that indicated in the adopted Master Plan.

 

8.3       Design

 

The design of the proposed development essentially will remain the same as that shown in the original adopted Master Plan which are based on the following design principles that have been drawn from an analysis of the site and its context:

 

§ Positioning of the building mass generally on the northern, southern and eastern perimeter of the subject site so as to reinforce the urban edge to the street frontages along these boundaries

 

§ Step the building scale down towards Dangar Street to integrate with the existing residential properties on the opposite side of Dangar Street with an increase in height towards the University Press Building to the east. 

 

§ A public square with retail and day care uses located at the south-east corner of the subject site to augment the prominence of this corner.

 

§ Provision of private landscaped open space within the subject site for aged residents use whilst maintaining views from public domains into this private open space.

 

§ Provision of public landscaped open space to the perimeter of the subject site to facilitate public use, improve pedestrian amenity and enhance views of the subject site from surrounding residential streets and areas

 

8.4       Function Room

 

A concern has been raised in the resident submission to the addition of a function room in the amended proposal. The applicant advises that the function room will be similar in use to the multi-purpose hall originally proposed in the adopted Master Plan, which will now be replaced by the proposed function room. The function room is required to cater for families of residents in the aged care home during Jewish festivals and following synagogue services. The function room will also be made available to the local community should capacity allow. The provision of the function room is considered reasonable and is not expected to give rise to adverse impacts on surrounding residential uses as its use will be governed by EPA guidelines under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The noise impact of the function room has been included in an acoustic report submitted by the applicant with the current development application for the site. These impacts and the merits of the function room will be further assessed at the development application stage, and if necessary, appropriate conditions will be applied including the requirement for a plan of management for the function room.

 

 

8.5       Zoning

 

The provision of a public zone comprising retail, community facilities and public open space in the south-eastern corner of the subject site will assist in integrating the main aged care use with the overall residential neighbourhood. The local shops (limited to a gross floor area of 350 sqm) also aim to complement the existing retail facilities (2 shops) located on the opposite side of King Street, on the corner with Church Street.

 

The Randwick LEP 1998 does not allow business premises within Residential zones 2A, 2B and 2C. Clause 42 of the LEP (Schedule 2) allows for development of land for certain additional purposes other than those permissible under the existing zoning of the land. The proposed amendment to Randwick LEP is considered to be reasonable and will enhance the amenity of both the occupants of the aged care facility and local residents. Accordingly, a draft LEP instrument will be prepared to include ‘local shops’ as an additional use on the south-eastern corner of Dangar and King Streets in Schedule 2 pursuant to Clause 42 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to Council requesting amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998 to allow for these uses to be included. It should be noted that Council, in adopting the original Master Plan on 10 July 2001, also resolved to support the rezoning. As the boundaries of the subject site now differ from that proposed in the earlier adopted Master Plan, it is recommended that Council reaffirm its earlier resolution that a draft Local Environmental Plan be prepared to give effect to the amended Master Plan provisions and remove any zoning anomaly arising from the adoption of the amended Master Plan.

 

8.6       Heritage

 

The subject site originally contained two heritage items, namely, the brick chimney and the former “Institute Building”. The brick chimney is no longer part of the amended Master Plan as it is located in the adjoining Lot 201. The former Institute Building is proposed to be demolished and a heritage impact report together with a Statement of Heritage Impact for demolition of a heritage building was submitted with the adopted Master Plan in support of the proposed demolition. Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the heritage reports and raised no objection to the demolition of the Institute Building subject to appropriate archival recording of the building and provision of interpretive material recording the use of the building. This information has already been provided with the current development application for the site, which will be assessed by Council’s heritage planner.

 

8.7       Landscaping and pedestrian access

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 requires landscaped areas to be provided at a rate of a minimum 35 percent per dwelling and a minimum 25 percent per hostel or residential care facility bed. When applied to the amended development, the landscaped area requirement will be 9,025 sqm (35 sqm x 60 self-care units plus 25 sqm x 277 aged care beds) The Master Plan provides for a total area of 16,082 sqm for landscaping, which complies with the SEPP 5 requirement. 

 

In relation to public open space DCP No.18 requires the provision of large, useable areas of public open space within the site.  An area of public open space is proposed on the corner of King and Dangar Streets.  The larger open space areas within the site are for the use of residents of the development. 

 

In relation to pedestrian access, DCP No.18 requires that at least one cross-site link be provided between King Street and Govett Lane to facilitate access to Centennial Park. The applicant has advised in writing that a pedestrian/bicycle pathway will be provided in conjunction with the stormwater overland flow structure that will be constructed along the western boundary. The pathway and storm-water structure will be constructed from Govett Lane for approximately half the distance to King Street with the remainder of the pathway to King Street to be provided within the adjoining Lot 201 STA site (as required in the necessary variation to the adopted Master Plan submitted by De La Vega Architects for this site).

 

8.8       Social Impact and Support Services

 

The amended Master Plan will continue to support the social planning principles adopted in the original Master Plan including the provision of support services and security for future residents of the aged care facility.  A Social Impact Assessment has been provided with the development application for Stage 1.

 

8.9       Site Remediation

 

The requirements for site remediation will be maintained under the amended Master Plan in accordance with the provisions of Randwick City Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site and guidelines made by the NSW EPA and PlanningNSW. The applicant is addressing the site contamination issues in the current development application for the site.

 

8.10     Flora and fauna

 

Council as part of its consideration of the adopted Master Plan required that a flora and fauna study to assess compliance with Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 be submitted with any development application for the site. This requirement remains applicable under the amended Master Plan. A flora and fauna assessment has been submitted with the current development application for the site, which is currently being assessed.

 

8.11     Ecological Sustainable Development

 

The amended Master Plan will retain and support all the principles of ecologically sustainable development adopted in the original Master Plan including solar access, energy efficiency, building material and orientation. An ESD assessment has been included with the current development application for the site.

 

8.12     Impact on adjoining properties

 

8.12.1  Sunlight

 

The overshadowing impact under the amended Master Plan essentially will remain the same as that indicated in the original adopted Master Plan with no adverse overshadowing expected from the proposed 3-storey self-care buildings fronting King Street onto the properties on the opposite southern side of this street due to the substantial setbacks proposed along King Street.

 

Similarly, the block fronting Dangar Street will be 2-storey in height with a proposed setback of 10m which, in addition to the width of Dangar Street, will off-set any afternoon overshadowing impact on the residential properties to the east on the opposite side of Dangar Street. 

 

The current development application for the site indicates that the impact of internal overshadowing on the aged-care and self-care buildings within the proposed development will be minimal given the generous distances between these two buildings and the open layout of the proposed development due to the abundant private open space in the plan.

 

8.12.2  Privacy and noise

 

The retention of generous landscaped setbacks along the street frontages under the amended Master Plan will provide adequate distance from the surrounding residential properties to minimise any potential overlooking into these properties. The proposed use, being that of an aged care facility, combined with the low to medium scale nature of the proposed development, is not considered to give rise to adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy.

 

In relation to traffic noise from the proposed development, an acoustics report has been provided with the current development application for the site, which will be assessed accordingly by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in relation to the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. If necessary, appropriate conditions will be applied on the proposed development.

 

Concern has also been raised in the resident submission over the recycling of material on the site and the potential for noise and dust to be generated by this. This issue will be addressed in the assessment of the development application for the site and, if necessary, appropriate conditions will be applied to ensure all demolition and construction activities comply with Council’s guidelines.

 

8.13     Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Stage 1 of the proposed development will provide for 136 carparking spaces to cater for the aged care facility, synagogue, day care centre and function room. Whilst no details of the carparking numbers for the self-care units in the Stage 2 development have been provided, the applicant has advised that the carparking provision for Stage 2 will comply with Council’s DCP –Parking.

 

The amended Master Plan will result in less traffic generation from the subject site than that estimated in the adopted Master Plan because the number of self-care dwelling units will be reduced from 100 to 60, and 60 carparking spaces originally required for the STA will be deleted from the proposal. However, the 60 STA carparking spaces will now be provided in the proposed development in the adjoining Lot 201 in addition to 130 carspaces for the multi-storey residential development proposed on this lot. In addition, a Master Plan was adopted on 25 June 2002 for the development of 66 new dwelling units in land adjacent to the subject site at 68-78 Wentworth Street. Therefore, cumulatively, there will be a slight increase in traffic as a result of the proposed new developments in the two King Street sites and the Wentworth Street site. However, this cumulative increase in traffic and its impact is not expected to be excessive as the traffic increase does not exceed the maximum environmental capacity of surrounding roads, that is, the surrounding roads can accommodate the expected increase.

 

It should be noted that the development applications for the subject site and the adjoining Lot 201 have been referred to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Development. The Committee has raised no objections to both proposed developments subject to the provision of various traffic management and parking measures along King and Dangar Streets. Appropriate conditions will be applied on the development application for the site requiring the implementation of these traffic calming measures.

 

8.14     Notification of amended Master Plan

 

An objection was raised in relation to the notification of the amended Master Plan occurring subsequent to that of the development application for the subject site. Due to a delay by the applicant in providing appropriate copies of the amended Master Plan, the amended Master Plan was submitted after the lodgement of the development application, which resulted in the amended Master Plan being notified later than the development application. This situation was beyond Council’s control. There is no statutory requirement for an amended Master Plan to be notified before the notification of an accompanying development application. However, an amended Master Plan must be determined before determination of the development application.

 

8.15     Matters to be addressed in development applications

 

The original Master Plan was adopted by Council subject to a range of issues including heritage, traffic, site contamination and acoustic considerations being addressed in any development application for the subject site. The applicant has provided relevant advice with the current development application for the site indicating that these issues have been addressed. An application for the proposed Stage 1 development has been lodged with Council and will be reported to Council shortly. In addition, the amended Master Plan is consistent with the variations to the original Master Plan required of applicant at adoption. 

 

9.         CONCLUSION:

 

The amended Master Plan for the Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home for aged persons arises from changes in ownership of the adjoining Lot 201. The amended Master Plan is substantially consistent with the adopted Master Plan. Variations occur primarily in the layout of the self-care units fronting King Street; the density of the proposed development; and the location of the King Street access road. These variations are considered acceptable and do not detract significantly from the original concept in the adopted Master Plan. Overall the amended proposal has merit and should be adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.   Adopt the amended master plan for an aged care housing facility at Lot 202 DP 879576, 100-120 King Street, Randwick.

 

2.   Resolve to prepare and exhibit a draft local environmental plan under Sections 54, 64 and 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to give effect to the amended master plan provisions and remove any zoning anomaly arising from the adoption of the amended master plan by permitting the additional use on part of the site for local shops.

 

3.   Resolve that the amended master plan be adopted for a period of five (5) years from date of adoption being 27 August 2002.

 

4.   Note that, adoption of the amended master plan will be subject to the variations as outlined in the report dated 10 July 2001, upon which it will replace in whole the master plan adopted by Council on 10 July, 2001 which relate to Lot 210 and Lot 202 of DP 879576 (88-100 and 100-12 King Street Randwick).

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Amended Master Plan for the Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home, Lot 202 King Street, RANDWICK (under separate cover)

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILLI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 55/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

11 LEONARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

DA 684/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 684/2002 for 11 Leonard Avenue, KINGSFORD for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 14 August 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON FRENCH

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

14 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D0684/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 New upper level balcony and replacement of existing window with doors at rear of existing dwelling house.

PROPERTY:

 11 Leonard Avenue, Kingsford

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Peter Schick & Grace Schick

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

(nil)

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This development application has been referred to an Ordinary Council Meeting because the owner of the subject property is Councillor Peter Schick.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves erecting a new first level balcony at the rear of an existing dwelling house and replacing an existing window with bi-fold timber doors so as to provide access to that balcony. The room from which the balcony would extend is currently undergoing maintenance work, but it is understood that the room would be used as a living room.

 

The proposed balcony would sit adjacent to the rear wall of the dwelling and would measure 2.218m wide and 1.275m deep. The balcony would consist of a timber frame and a decorative metal railing. The floor of the balcony would be elevated approximately 2.675m above ground level, being the floor level of the adjacent room.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site contains a detached dwelling house and is located on the eastern side of Leonard Avenue, Kingsford, north of Borrodale Road. The site is regularly shaped, with a frontage to Leonard Avenue of 12.192m, a depth of 36.575m and a total area of 445.9sqm. The site slopes gently from the street down to the rear property boundary.

 

This section of Leonard Street is characterised by single and double storey detached dwelling houses. No. 9 Leonard Avenue adjoins the northern boundary of the site and contains a single storey, detached dwelling house. No. 13 Leonard Avenue adjoins the southern side of the site and contains a single storey, detached dwelling house. The rear of the site adjoins the Kingsford Tennis Centre, which is accessed from Court Avenue.

 

The dwelling house on the subject site is mostly single storey. A small section at the rear of the house is double storey. The ground level of this section is accessed from outside and contains a laundry and toilet. The first level of this section contains a room which is currently undergoing maintenance but which is likely to be used as a living room. It is proposed to replace the window to this room with bi-fold timber doors so as to provide access to the proposed balcony.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

Consent has been granted on three separate occasions (in 1975, 1979 and 1988) to carry out alterations and additions to the dwelling house. Consent was granted in 1979 for a carport.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified to surrounding properties in accordance with clause 23 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submissions were received during the designated period.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The nature of the proposal is such that there has been no need to refer the application to other technical officers within Council or to any external bodies.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1  Policy Controls

a.        Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

              Height, Form & Materials

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development will be visible from the rear yard of no.13 Leonard Avenue (to the south of the subject site) and from the tennis centre located at the rear of the site. Beyond the tennis centre, the rear of the properties fronting this section of Leonard Street are visible from Court Avenue. The rear of the properties in this section of Leonard Avenue do not have an identifiable character.

 

Whilst elevated rear balconies are not common in this section of Leonard Street, the proposed works would not be out of scale with the existing dwelling house or surrounding development. The proposed balcony is simple in its design and proposed materials and is not considered excessively bulky. The balcony would not increase the overall height of the existing dwelling. The size and proportioning of the proposed bi-fold doors are considered appropriate.

 

                        Building Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed balcony is set back approximately 2m from the (southern) side boundary with no. 13 Leonard Avenue. The proposed balcony is well set back from other property boundaries. The setbacks of the proposed balcony comply with the preferred solutions in the DCP and are considered adequate.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

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

 

The location of mature landscaping and existing garage/carport structures in the rear yard of the subject site is such that no overlooking of the rear yard of no. 9 Leonard Avenue would be achieved from the proposed balcony. Overlooking of the tennis courts at the rear of the subject property is not considered to be an issue for concern. In its proposed form, the balcony does have the potential to overlook part of the rear yard of no. 13. The proposed balcony is quite small and the extent of the overlooking which would be possible from the balcony is considered acceptable.

 

The size of the proposed balcony is such that its use is unlikely to affect the acoustic privacy of surrounding properties any more than would the normal residential use of the backyard.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

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

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

 

The erection of the proposed balcony has the potential to marginally increase the overshadowing of the rear yard of no. 13 Leonard Avenue. The positioning of existing mature vegetation in the rear yard of the subject site is such that any additional overshadowing to the rear yard of no. 13 Leonard Avenue would be minimal. Accordingly, the shadowing effect of the proposed balcony is considered acceptable.

 

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.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 684/02 for permission to erect a new upper level balcony and replacement of existing window with doors at rear of existing dwelling house at 11 Leonard Avenue, Kingsford, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan numbered DA-01, dated July 2002 and received by Council on 17 July 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3          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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

5          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.

 

6          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.

 

7          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.

 

8          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.

 

9          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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12        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.

 

ATTACHMENT

 

A4 configuration plan

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON FRENCH

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 56/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house for 74 Marine Parade Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

12 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D1153/2001/GA

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held on the 9th July 2002 resolved that this application be deferred to the next meeting 13th August 2002 during which time the applicant be invited to submit amended plans having regard to the concerns raised to the Committee at that meeting in the report presented.

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution the applicant was invited to submit amended plans by letter dated 19 July 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

The application was not referred to the Health, Building & Planning Committee of the 13 August 2002 as the applicant had not responded to the above resolution prior to the deadline for preparation of reports.  The applicant also requested a site inspection with the elected members.

 

Applicant’s Response to Council’s Resolution

 

The applicant submitted two letters to Council one on the 16 July 2002 and a second on the 29 July 2002.  The content of these letters is outlined below:

 

Letter dated 16 July 2002

 

Amended plans dated 15 March 2002 were submitted. These amended plans did address the concerns raised in a letter dated 18 January 2002.

 

Some of Council’s recommendations tabled in the ‘Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting Business Paper’ dated 9July 2002 were incorrect, inconsistent and harsh. An on site inspection would support this. I would like the amended plans dated 15 March 2002 which were sent to you be submitted

 

The business paper report for the 9 July 2002 was prepared on the amended plans dated the 15 March 2002. The assessment carried out indicated that the amended plans did not satisfy the Council officer’s concerns in relation to:

 

·    Variation from the building line,

·    Unacceptable impact on the streetscape and foreshore protection area and

·    View loss to adjoining properties.

 

Letter dated 29 July 2002

 

·    I fail to understand why the plans submitted will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape of Marine Parade, the subject site and other buildings within the streetscape are an eye sore.

 

·    I fail to understand how my proposed plans will have a detrimental impact on amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties

 

·    A large three storey being completed along Marine Parade  I believe has contravened Council’s code how was approval granted?

 

·    An inspection of residential properties against the plans submitted indicate inconsistency in rulings.

 

·    Reason for refusal no. 5 indicated unfairness and inconsistency an on site inspection would support this.

 

·    76 Marine Parade is the property which will deprive No. 72 Marine Parade of View to the South.

 

·    Reason for refusal no. 7 is a repeat of No. 1 and No. 5

 

·    Reason for refusal no. 8 is a repeat of No.1.

 

·    Many very large dwelling have been erected along Marine Parade over the years this refusal would be inconsistent.

 

I would appreciate a Council representative to be present at 74 Marine Parade for an on site meeting.

 

The above points raised by the applicant do not put forward an alternative design solution for the proposed development. The points discuss the individual reasons for refusal and do not necessarily relate to the proposed design of the current application.

 

The purpose of deferring the determination of the application was to invite amended plans. The applicant has not been agreeable to investigate further design changes and as such the application with the original recommendation is submitted to Council for determination.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The application before Council was deferred at the Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting of the 9 July 2002 in order to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to satisfactorily address the concerns raised in the report of that meeting.

 

A letter was submitted from the applicant addressing the individual reasons for refusal.  A requesting that amended plans dated 15 March 2002 be submitted to Council for determination.

 

The report and the recommendation of the 9 July 2002 was based on the assessment of the amended plans dated 15 March 2002 and as such the original recommendation is resubmitted to Council for determination.

 

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 Parade 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 Parade 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:

 

1.  Original Development Application Report dated 26 June 2002

    

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

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 & Community Development's Report 57/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Integration of Council's Affordable Housing Policy & Council's Planning Instruments

 

 

DATE:

15 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2735

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 18 July 2002, Council resolved:-

 

“that this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 27th August, 2002”.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the Director Planning and Community Development Report No. 47/2002.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

Director Planning & Community Development Report 47/2002     

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KAREN ARMSTRONG

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CO-ORDINATOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 47/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Integration of Council's Affordable Housing Policy and Council's Planning Instruments

 

 

DATE:

18 July, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2735

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council, at its meeting of 9 April 2002, resolved in relation to Affordable Housing:

 

“That Council’s Affordable Housing Policy be integrated with Council’s planning instruments to enable the intent of the Policy to be implemented. A Report and recommendation are to be brought before the July Health, Building and Planning Committee Meeting with a view to advertising changes immediately so Council’s Planning Codes reflect the elected representatives intent. If some amendments are more difficult that others to have implemented, the Report to Council should show a separation of recommendations for expediency”.       

 

This report discusses current investigations and initiatives being undertaken by Council officers to encourage the retention and development of affordable housing in Randwick City. Council has previously resolved to prepare a draft LEP and draft DCP for Affordable Housing, and to further investigate the recommendations of the 1999 Randwick Housing Affordability and Access Study in the preparation of these draft plans.  The study also highlighted other opportunities for encouraging affordable housing, which are also outlined in this report.

 

The State Government’s introduction of a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes), on 31 May 2002, impacts on Council’s ability to progress an Affordable Housing LEP/DCP. The new SEPP has also removed Council’s ability to collect S94 contributions for the loss of Affordable Housing.  Given the timing of this SEPP it was not possible to report back to the July HBP Committee meeting, as originally intended.  The implications of the SEPP have now been included in this report.

 

The report recommends that Council officers proceed on a number of planning and other initiatives to encourage Affordable Housing and also that Council write to the Minister for Planning requesting his support for this work.

 

ISSUES:

 

BACKGROUND

 

Few Councils have introduced Affordable Housing planning provisions to date.  Randwick City Council took an early and active role in this issue by undertaking several housing studies, which identified the need for affordable housing in the City.

 

A 1995 Housing Study investigated the current and future housing issues facing Randwick City.  In response to this study, Council developed a Housing Policy (Policy No 6.01.26; Minute No: H54/1996), which included the charging of Section 94 for the loss of affordable housing (See Attachment 1).

 

Following preparation of the 1999 Randwick Housing Affordability and Access Study (RHAA), Council resolved at its meeting of 7 April 2002, to prepare a draft DCP for Affordable Housing (see Resolution at Attachment 2). Upon further investigation, Council at its meeting of 13 February 2001, resolved to prepare a draft LEP to assist in implementing affordable housing objectives (see Resolution at Attachment 3).

 

Planning NSW (formerly Department of Urban Affairs and Planning) has indicated as early as 1998, an intention to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“The Act”), and prepare a SEPP and guidelines in relation to Affordable Housing.

 

A court decision in February 2000 raised issues for the preparation of Affordable Housing LEPs and DCPs.  In Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd –v- Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (2000) NSW LEC20, the court held that the South Sydney LEP and DCP for Affordable Housing were invalid because the LEP did not comply with the objects of the Act. It stated that there were no powers under the Act to seek mandatory provisions for affordable housing.

 

The State Government, in response to this decision, amended the Act with provisions to validate existing LEPs and S.94 Contributions Plans addressing Affordable Housing. The Act amendment was applied for a period 2 years, which expired on 5 June 2002.

 

SEPP 70 -  Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) was gazetted on 31 May 2002.  The SEPP validated affordable housing provisions in LEPs for Green Square in South Sydney and Willoughby Council’s and in the City West REP for Ultimo / Pyrmont. SEPP 70 does not allow new affordable housing schemes (LEPs) to be prepared.

 

Planning NSW has written to councils advising that "this policy does not permit new schemes to be developed" (see Attachment 4) and that further consideration is being given to enabling the development of affordable housing schemes in other areas of housing need.  Planning NSW noted that a separate SEPP to permit new schemes will be publicly exhibited when finalised to allow further discussion.

 

 

 

 

CURRENT POSITION

 

SEPP 70 raises concern for Randwick City, North Sydney and Waverley councils in that it does not allow new affordable housing schemes to be developed. It validates only three existing affordable housing schemes in Sydney (Green Square, Ultimo/Pyrmont and Willoughby) while North Sydney, Waverley and Randwick S94 Contributions were not included in the SEPP.  Waverley Council and the Local Government and Shires Association have recently written to the Minister and / or Planning NSW expressing their concerns on this matter. SSROC is also intending to write to Planning NSW requesting immediate action to validate S94 Plans and release of the new SEPP.

 

Given that Planning NSW has noted that the new SEPP will permit new affordable housing schemes, Council officers will continue to investigate appropriate planning controls to include in its draft LEP and DCP, pending advice of the new SEPP details.

 

It is unknown at this stage whether or not the new SEPP will address the Act amendment which removed Council’s ability to levy S.94 contributions for the loss of affordable housing. The Minister should be advised of Council’s concern over this matter and be requested to amend the legislation, amend the new SEPP or otherwise validate this situation, as S94 levies provide a significant opportunity for Council to actively provide for affordable housing in the area.

 

It is recommended that Council write to the Minister for Planning:

(a)     expressing its concern about the failure of SEPP 70 to recognise the need for affordable housing in Randwick City;

(b)     requesting that SEPP 70 be amended and/or the new SEPP be expedited to enable a new affordable housing scheme to be implemented in Randwick City, including an LEP and DCP; and

(c)     seeking that the Minister to validate Council’s ability to levy for the loss of affordable housing under its S94 Plan, recognising that this as a significant opportunity to actively provide providing affordable housing in Randwick City

 

PLANNING INVESTIGATIONS AND INITIATIVES

 

Draft LEP – Aims for Affordable Housing

 

Council’s 2001 resolution requested that a draft LEP include the following aim:

 

‘to encourage the retention of existing, and the development of new, affordable housing in a variety of types and tenures for all income groups’

 

In addition to this, the RHAA Study recommended the incorporation of other aims, including:

 

‘‘to ensure that affordable housing is to be rented to eligible households at an appropriate rate of gross household income”,

“to ensure that dwellings provided for affordable housing are to be managed so as to maintain their continued use for affordable housing” and

“to ensure that very low to moderate households can continue to live in the Randwick LGA”.

 

The above aims will be considered for inclusion in the draft LEP and/or the draft DCP.

 

Draft Lep - Definition Of Affordable Housing

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution in March 2001, Council notified Planning NSW of its intention to prepare a draft LEP. An issue of concern was the definition of Affordable Housing. Council was advised to await the introduction of the SEPP, which was envisaged to introduce a uniform definition across the Metropolitan area.

 

SEPP 70 does contain a definition of affordable housing, as follows:

 

“Affordable housing means housing for very low income households or moderate income households, which are those whose gross income falls within the following ranges of percentages of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) :

 

Very low income household                less than 50%

Low income household                       50 or more but less than 80%

Moderate income household               80-120%’

 

This is consistent with the definition of affordable housing used in the RHAA Study and in South Sydney Council’s Affordable Housing DCP for Green Square.

 

Explanatory text accompanying the definition, should note, in the same way as the Green Square Affordable Housing DCP 1999,  ‘that the term ‘affordable housing’ conveys the notion of reasonable housing costs in relation to income’ as identified in the National Housing Strategy’. This Strategy states that reasonable housing costs for these households are defined as 25-30% of gross household income. 

 

Randwick LEP 1998 also contains some inconstancy / overlapping of housing definitions, which should be reviewed and revised in this draft LEP.

 

It is recommended that Council endorse the SEPP 70 definition for inclusion in Randwick LEP 1998 (clause 49 – definitions) and a review of housing definitions to clarify and clearly define the range of housing types.

 

It is also recommended that Council under S65 of the Act agree to exhibit a draft LEP.

 

Other planning proposals

 

The RHAA study identifies a range of planning mechanisms that Council can use to:

-           retain existing affordable housing stock;

-           encourage the provision of new accessible and/ or affordable housing stock; and

-           require the provision of accessible and/ or affordable housing stock.’

 

Key mechanisms to further consider are summarised and discussed below and recommendations made about inclusion in Council’s planning instruments or other actions.

 

Inclusionary Zoning

 

Inclusionary zoning can require that a component of affordable housing is included as part of a proposed development.  The RHAA study notes that this is only likely to succeed where there is a link between a development, particularly a major redevelopment or new development area, and a reduction in low cost housing.

 

Inclusionary zoning has been adopted in the City West the REP for the Ultimo/ Pyrmont incorporating a statutory requirement for private development to contribute to affordable housing provision. South Sydney Council’s LEP for Green Square also contains inclusionary zoning provisions. However when success fully challenged in the court, this involved a challenge to whether the inclusionary zoning was contemplated under the Act.  The new SEPP 70 only validated South Sydney’s Green Square LEP, City West REP and Willoughby LEP.

 

As the inclusionary zoning is not yet introduced through the planning legislation or a SEPP, Council is not in a position to consider this option.

 

Planning Incentives

 

The RHAA study recommends the development of a package of incentives to encourage developers to integrate affordable housing into new residential and mixed use developments. To enable this to occur, Council’s LEP 1998 and DCPs would need to allow variation of standards and provisions for affordable housing, such as building heights, densities, car parking, setbacks and/or landscaping requirements.

 

The Study notes that Waverley Council has amended its DCP multi-unit housing to state that “council will consider variations of 20-25% to the minimum site area per dwelling in return for the additional dwellings being devoted to affordable housing”. The Study notes that Waverley found that a floor space bonus can offset costs associated with the provision of affordable housing. It also notes Randwick’s current maximum floor space ratio for the 2B Zone is 0.65:1 and 0.9:1 for 2C, and that increases of 15-25% have been shown to be feasible without affecting environmental amenity. 

 

The Study notes that the varying of density is more acceptable to communities than the varying of height.

 

It notes that planning incentives for specific housing types, such as the conversion of existing buildings to shop-top housing could also be pursued.

 

While this mechanism has merit and warrants further review, it is a form of bonus system and given this flexibility it reduces certainty over the likely outcomes of planning controls.  The issue may be acceptable however, if considered on controls other than height.

 

The main issue with this option is that it is not mandatory but is a voluntary mechanism. As such, it could be pursued under the provisions of the current legislation. However, it is dependent on relaxing planning controls or providing bonuses in terms of higher floor space ratio, lower number r of parking spaces, or the like.

 

The issue of provision of bonuses in exchange for community facilities or open space has been explored in the draft DCP for Kensington town centre and did not receive community or Council support. Council officers would need Council’s direction as to whether or not Council would support pursuing this option now for Affordable Housing.

 

It is recommended that the above incentives be further considered for inclusion within an Affordable Housing LEP and DCP.

 

SEPP 10 - Retention of Low Cost rental Accommodation

 

The study recommends the integration of the provisions contained in SEPP 10 into Council’s LEP to assist to retain low cost housing. SEPP 10 has since been applied to Randwick City and all its provisions apply.

 

It is recommended Council’s LEP be checked against SEPP 10 to ensure the integration of the provisions of the policy

 

Developer Agreements/ Conditions of Consent

 

Developer agreements refer to legal agreements entered into between the developer and consent authority that could, for example, outline the planning concessions offered in return for affordable housing opportunities. The Study notes that Waverley Council has used planning agreements in developments that result in the loss of existing affordable housing.  Shelter NSW has recommended amendments to the Act along the lines of the Victorian Planning Act to strengthen the legality of such agreements.

 

These warrant further investigation for inclusion in the draft DCP.

 

The 1999 Study also notes, in relation to conditions of consent, that Councils such as Waverley and North Sydney have adopted as policy, requirements that the social and economic effects of a development be specifically considered when assessing DAs under 79 C of the Act. For Randwick City, the proposed LEP and DCP will provide an appropriate policy basis for future DA consideration. Together with an accurate data base and a standard set of conditions, this will provide consistency and strengthen the capacity of Council to impose conditions of consent for DAs that result in the loss of affordable housing.

 

It is recommended that Council officers develop a standard set of conditions of consent, to be applied in a consistent way to developments that may have an adverse impact on existing low-income tenants and boarders and lodgers.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

The 1999 Study suggests a range of strategies in relation to Council’s capacity to charge Section 94 for the loss of affordable housing. 

 

The Study suggests that Council could consider increasing its rates of Section 94 charged in line with the rates charged by Waverley and North Sydney Councils.  Council’s charge is only $572 per affordable housing bedspace lost, while Waverley is $7008 per bedroom lost and North Sydney $7471 per bedspace lost for a boarding house and $9,997.37 per bedspace lost for a unit. The Study also recommends that Council consider extending the S94 levy applying to demolition of boarding houses to demolition of all types of affordable housing.

 

As discussed above, following the Green Square court case, Planning NSW introduced legislation that validated Randwick, Waverley, and North Sydney S94 schemes for a 2 year period. However, this lapsed in June 2002.

 

Council has recently received legal advice that as SEPP 70 does not include Randwick, Council is therefore no longer able to charge Section 94 for the loss of affordable housing.  However this situation may change with the release of a new affordable housing SEPP.  Council has been charging Section 94 for the loss of affordable housing since at least July 1996, and almost $498,000 has been collected at 1st July 2002. In accordance with Council's earlier resolution, the funds from this account are to be used as Council’s contribution to a possible joint venture project with the Department of Housing for affordable housing on a Council owned site at Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra. The negotiations are underway.

 

 

Other non-planning investigations/initiatives

 

Regional Housing Coordinator

 

Council and 4 other councils were recently successful in gaining a grant, under the Local Government Housing Initiatives Program (LGHIP), to employ a Regional Housing Coordinator to better address housing needs across the region. Marrickville, South Sydney, Botany Bay, Waverley and Randwick councils were part of the bid for this position. Council has agreed to be the host council for the 2 year position, which is to be advertised shortly.

 

Housing Data Base

 

In order to adequately gauge the current housing needs and availability, Council should have a comprehensive and current database. A housing database is currently being developed, utilising internal property records, relevant census data and surveys. A boarding house survey was recently sent out to initiate the collection and collation of detailed housing data.

 

 

Management of affordable housing

 

A number of major redevelopment sites such as the Maroubra mall site, have identified the provision of affordable housing in their Master plans/DAs. Procedural and management arrangements will need to be established for ongoing ownership/management requirements of these dwellings.

 

Council needs to address issues such as:

 

§  Management and ownership issues

§  Eligibility list for Affordable Housing

§  Waiting List Management

§  Level of rent and rent collection

§  Responsibility for collecting and retaining the rent

§  Mix of dwellings and dwelling size

§  Responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of Affordable dwellings

 

As an example, in conjunction with the development of the City West (Ultimo-Pyrmont) Affordable Housing Program, the City West Affordable Housing Company was established. The main responsibilities of the company included management of dwellings, development of eligibility criteria, managing waiting lists, development and maintenance of Affordable Housing.

 

The issues associated with the management of Affordable Housing are highly complex and require extensive discussion with the relevant Government agencies. The Eastern Suburbs Residential Association (ESRA) has been involved with Waverley Council’s Affordable Housing scheme. It is also proposed that Council initiate discussion with ESRA on developing a standard management policies and practices.

 

Social Plan  - review

 

Council’s Social Plan 1999-2003 requires review and background investigations have recently commenced. Affordable housing issues and opportunities will need to be addressed in this Plan to ensure that Council approaches affordable housing issues in a comprehensive way, incorporating not only planning but also a range of opportunities for Council to encourage the retention and provision of additional affordable housing in Randwick City.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The recent State Government changes to the planning legislation and through SEPP 70 have raised difficulties and uncertainty for Council in its progression of affordable housing planning and other related initiatives. Council will continue to investigate and define a comprehensive strategy for affordable housing, with a view to implementing elements that are not currently constrained by the recent State changes. These elements include further investigation of preferred LEP/DCP clauses, introduction of a management strategy/policy for new affordable housing, progressing the joint venture at Minneapolis Crescent, establishing a housing database, employment of a regional housing coordinator and review of the Social Plan. Council will continue liaise with Planning NSW on the timing and content of the new SEPP and to ensure that any proposals enhance Council’s previous, current and future efforts to encourage affordable housing.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

(1)        Note and endorse the planning investigations underway to date on the affordable housing LEP and DCP provisions and other initiatives;

 

(2)        Agree, under S.65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to the exhibition of the draft Affordable Housing LEP to incorporate aims and definitions and any appropriate provisions relating to Affordable Housing;

 

(3)        Confirm its support and direction that in preparation of the draft LEP and DPC, consideration be given to the use of bonuses for provision of Affordable Housing; and

 

(4)              Agree to write to the Minister for Planning:

 

(a)        Expressing Council's concern about the failure of SEPP 70 to recognise the need for affordable housing in Randwick City;

 

(b)      Requesting that SEPP 70 be amended and/or the new SEPP be expedited to enable Randwick City to progress a new affordable housing scheme, including an LEP and DCP: and

 

(c)      Seeking that the Minister validate Council's ability to levy for the loss of affordable housing under its S94 Plan, recognising this as a significant opportunity to actively provide affordable housing in Randwick City

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Council's Housing Policy (no 6.01.26)

2. Council Resolution of 7 April 2001.

3. Council Resolution of 13 February 2001.

4. Planning NSW letter of 31 May 2002   

  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KAREN ARMSTRONG

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A/MANAGER STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 

 


 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

PART 6 – PLANNING

 

 

Review Date:   /           /20                                                                   Policy No: 6.01.26

 

 

POLICY TITLE:  RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL HOUSING POLICY.

 

File No:                        H-9-3

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To provide Council with a policy that aims in assisting the provision of adequate and appropriate housing for all residents of the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

1.         Council recognised that it has a role to play within the local housing market to ensure that all housing consumers are adequately housed within the City, and more specifically:

 

a)         Council recognises that there is a particular need for the provision of adequate, affordable and appropriate housing for lower income earners and special needs groups within the City.

 

b)         Council recognises that there is a need for the provision and retention of affordable rental housing and the encouragement of affordable housing for owner occupation.

 

c)         Council recognises that there is a need to provide a wide range of housing types in accordance with current the housing needs of the City.

 

d)         Council will use its planning powers under the E P&A Act to assist in the provision of affordable housing.

 

2.         Council recognises that any initiative it undertakes needs to be within the context of the broader role of the State and Federal Government activities and intervention and more specifically:

 

a)         Council will lobby the State and Federal Governments for the creation of additional programs, policies or planning regulations which assist in providing/retaining affordable housing.

 

b)         Council recognises that there is a need to improve conditions and recreational opportunities within the City’s public housing estates.

 

3.         Council encourages local community based groups which attempt to redress local housing problems in the provision of accommodation or other housing related services provision.

 

4.         Council recognises that any active role in takes in housing provision will be limited by financial constraints and will be subordinate to the roles of State and Federal Governments.

 

5.         Council recognises its ability to use opportunities under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to collect funds to help replenish the loss of affordable housing stock and more specifically:

 

a)         Council applies for annual funding under the Department of Housing’s Community Housing Program for the provision of affordable housing for the City.

 

b)         Council uses Section 94 funds collected for the purpose of providing affordable rental housing within the City.

 

6.         Council recognises the importance of research and monitoring of the housing market to maintain a current understanding of local housing issues.

 

7.         Council recognises the role of the Randwick Housing Taskforce as an advisory body on housing issues.

 

 

 

DEFINITIONS

 

1.         Affordable housing is housing that requires not more than a reasonable outlay of costs in relation to income so that households have sufficient income to meet the costs of other basic needs such as food, clothing, transport, medical care and education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:       H54/1996                                                        Meeting Date:   19 March, 1996

 



HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

TUESDAY 13TH FEBRUARY, 2001

 

 

6.3       DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 3/2001 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING.  (98/S/3428)

 

H23       RESOLUTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan/Matthews) that:

 

1.         Council resolve under s.54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to prepare an LEP to:

 

(a)         Insert an aim into clause 2 of Randwick LEP 1998 to encourage the retention of existing, and the development of new, affordable housing in a variety of types and tenures for all income groups;

 

(b)        To insert a definition for affordable housing into clause 49 of Randwick LEP 1998; and

 

(c)        To insert a sub-clause into clause 40A(5) for the “provision of affordable housing” to be included as a matter to be considered in the preparation of master plans.

 

2.         In the review of the Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan the planning incentives recommended in the Randwick Housing Affordability and Access Study be further examined and incorporated into the Development Control Plan to encourage the provision of affordable housing.

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan/Matthews) SEE RESOLUTION.

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 58/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Relocation of Council's Green Waste and Concrete Recycling Facility to 15 Bumborrah Point Road, Port Botany.

 

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3862

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council’s green waste and concrete recycling has been carried out at Yarra Bay since the early 1990s on the former landfill site that operated between 1966 and 1979.  

 

Characteristics of the current site are its close proximity to a sewage pumping station, the heritage-listed Chinese Gardens and the Port Botany cemetery. The site is designated land use zone 6A as a Bicentennial Park and it is intended to rehabilitate the site for future use as a park.

 

Council has identified risks involved with continuing the operation at Yarra Bay, both from a business perspective and from an environmental and public safety perspective. These issues were addressed in a report to Council on 23 April 2002. Council has identified 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany, the former Bunnerong power station site as being suitable for the relocation and expansion of the current facility.

 

This report recommends that Council endorse the preparation of an amending LEP to allow the subject site to be used as a recycling facility.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject land is located at 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany at Part Lot 103, DP 805 244. The site is zoned Port Botany 4B (An extract from the LEP is attached). The site is owned by Sydney Ports Corporation.

 

The proposed use is prohibited within Port Botany 4B zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998. Clause 42 of the LEP (schedule 2) allows for development of land for certain additional purposes other than those permissible under the existing zoning of the land.

 

The current location of the green waste and concrete recycling facility poses a number of limitations and problems regarding its operation.

 

The capacity of the current site has been reached, with regard to the amount of materials that can be stockpiled and processed, and the current location doesn’t allow for any expansion to cater for Council’s requirements. The previous use of the site as a landfill also presents the danger of possible contamination of the stockpiled materials.

 

There is strong opposition from members of the local community regarding the continued use of the site as a recycling facility. The relocation of the facility would allow for the current site to be upgraded and returned to the community as public open space.

 

Preliminary discussions with Planning NSW and the Sydney Ports Corporation have resulted in no objections being raised with regard to this matter progressing.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Port Botany 4B zoning for the site will remain unchanged and preparation of draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 32 should be supported to allow the additional use of a recycling facility at 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany.

 

The proposed use is reasonable, and is not likely to have any adverse impact upon the amenity of the surrounding industrial area.

 

A relocation of the facility to the proposExtract from Randwick LEP 1998ed site would allow for expansion to cater to Council needs and provide the opportunity to rehabilitate Bicentennial Park.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council: -

 

1)         Resolve under sections 54 and 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to prepare and exhibit a draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 32 permitting the site at No. 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany to be used for the purpose of a recycling facility.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Extract from Randwick LEP 1998

 

 

 

……………………………………….

 

 

………………………………..

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVE ROSELAND

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 59/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

54 Canberra Street, RANDWICK  NSW  2031

 

 

DATE:

22 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0515/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health Building and Planning Committee at its meeting on 13 August 2002, resolved:

 

“that this application be deferred to the ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 2002, in order to allow for mediation to take place between the applicant and the objector, in the presence of a Council Officer, to clarify and resolve some of the issues surrounding this application”.

 

ISSUES:

 

A mediation session was held on 21 August 2002 between the applicant and the objector, which was conducted by a private mediator Ms Clair Brown, in the presence of a Council Officer. At the mediation, the objector requested for the proposal to be redesigned to step down and be of single storey extension only. The applicant was not agreeable to alter the proposed development and to submit further amended plans. However, the applicant has agreed to the recommended conditions in the previous assessment report, which require a 0.3m height reduction of the proposed addition to the rear and increased sill height of the mezzanine room southern windows or alternatively obscure glazing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has endeavoured to resolve the dispute between the applicant and objectors through a mediation process. No agreement was reached and therefore the application is referred back to the committee for reconsideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0515/2002 for Alterations to ground floor and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house at 54 Canberra St, Randwick subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered AR/310/01 to 07 dated 07/03/02 and received by Council on 31/05/2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.         The height of the proposed addition at the rear (consisting of family room, storage and mezzanine) is to be reduced by 0.3m by:

 

i.      Reducing the internal ceiling height

ii.      Lowering the height of the external walls of the building

 

            so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed RL 15.340 and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

5.         The sill height of the mezzanine room southern windows are to be increased to a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below the specified level. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.         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.

 

8.         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:

 

9.         A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the proposed building work.

 

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

 

10.       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.

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.       The applicant shall liaise with Sydney Water regarding their requirements for construction over the sewer line. Documentary evidence from Sydney Water confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

22.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 16 July 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

16 July, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0515/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations to ground floor and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 54 Canberra St, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Shari Jackson

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Bastic, Backes and Andrews.

 

The estimated cost of development is $120,000.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and five (5) submissions were received. The main concerns relate to privacy, architectural character, height and overshadowing.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to ground floor and first floor extension the existing semidetached dwelling on the subject site. The extension and additions comprises of a family room and storage at lower ground floor level and a mezzanine (rumpus) area at the upper floor level. The submitted plans indicates that the proposed addition will be erected over an existing Water Board sewer line, which is located at the rear section of the site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is a long narrow allotment with a frontage to Canberra Street of 6.70m and a depth of 48.16m. The site is rectangular in shape and fall from the front to the rear at approximately 1.40m. It contains a single storey semi detached dwelling, which is of brick construction with tile roof.

 

The locality is predominantly characterised by a mixture of one and two storey attached semi or freestanding houses of mixed architectural styles. The existing dwelling on the subject site forms one side of a pair of semi detached dwellings. To the south are a number of semi detached houses (at no 56 & 58 Canberra Street) and to the east directly across the Street is the Randwick Energy Australia substation located at no 61 Canberra Street (Heritage Item).

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is no development application history pertaining to the site.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Clause 23 of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 for a period of fourteen days. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Anthony Ryan- 60 Canberra Street, Randwick.

 

Concerns:

- loss of sunlight on house and rear yard

- loss of privacy from the proposed windows

- the proposal is out of character with all the surrounding houses

 

Sean Connolly- 52 Canberra Street, Randwick.

 

Concerns:

-     loss of privacy

-     the proposal is out of character with all the surrounding houses.

 

George Melas- 56 Canberra Street, Randwick.

 

Concerns:

-     loss of sunshine to the house and rear yard

-     loss of privacy

-     the proposal is out of character with all the surrounding houses

 

Michael Menelaou- 17 Anderson Rd, Concord (submission is on behalf of owner at no 56 Canberra St)

 

Concerns:

-     loss of privacy

-     the aesthetic appearance of the extension / character

-     loss of natural sunlight

-     loss of potential district views

-     devaluation of adjoining properties

 

C.Signa- 195A Rainbow St, Randwick

 

Concerns:

-     loss of fresh air

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Building and Construction issues

 

-BCA classification

 

Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is Class 1a- dwelling.

 

6.2       Landscape issues

 

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

 

6.3       Service Authority issues

 

The applicant is to liaise with Sydney Water regarding their requirements in relation to building over an existing sewer line. Documentary evidence is to be submitted to Council confirming that the Sydney Water requirements have been satisfied prior to release of construction certificate.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the site is less than 4000 square metres.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan – 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3 Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

 

P4 Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

P5 Building materials, appliances minimise energy requirements.

 

P6 External clothes drying area available.

 

P7 Landscape design assists microclimate management.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

P10 Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2 Private open space

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

N/A

None proposed

 

 

The applicant proposes to clad the outer skin of ground floor in brickwork.

 

To be provided in rear yard.

 

N/A

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing living room windows do not receive 3 hours on June 21.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1 Stormwater disposal systems:

·    collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·    do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·    fit in with hydrology;

·    use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·    maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·    retain existing trees.

 

P2 Water consumption minimised inside dwelling.

 

P3 Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2 Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

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

 

Stormwater to be drained to Council’s street system.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condition to be attached.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1 Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2 Location and design of private open space:

 

·    Allows year-round use

·    minimises impact on neighbours

·    addresses privacy and sun access

·    addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4 Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6 Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S1 40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1 Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1 Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6 20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Complies -

43% landscaping provided

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

Complies

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area (m2)

                                1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Complies

Site area=

322.90 sq m

Preferred FSR is 0.6:1

Proposed FSR is 0.574:1

 

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1 Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

P2 Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4 Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

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

 

P6 Design allows view sharing.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

S3 Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

 

S3 No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3 No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

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

 

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

 

Complies

Maximum 6.5m.

 

 

N/A

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northern wall at nil (0) setback.  Southern wall at 0.9 to 1.5m setback.

 

 

 

Complies with performance requirement

 

 

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.

 

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.

First floor  southern windows will overlook adjoining rear yard (condition to be attached).

 

 

(to be conditioned)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·    enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·    safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

·    Garages and carport to a rear lane are 1m setback.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Existing (no changes).

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Existing

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Existing

 

 

 

 

 

Existing

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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

 

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

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Development Control Plan- Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

9.1.1    Overshadowing

 

The objectives and performance requirements of DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies include the protection of solar access to adjoining properties through appropriate design and siting of new buildings. The preferred solutions requires that the principal outdoor recreation space and north facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receives at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their area/ surface between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 21 June.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that at 9.00 am, the adjoining property at no 56 Canberra Street will be fully in shadow due to the height of the existing side fence and retaining wall. From 12.00 midafternoon, the majority of the rear yard of the adjoining property at 56 Canberra Street, which receives solar access under current conditions will not be affected by the proposed development. At 3.00 pm, the shadow impact on No. 56 Canberra Street from the proposed development,

will be significantly less.

 

The proposal will cause some additional overshadowing to the northern side windows of the dwelling at 56 Canberra Street. However, it is to be noted that a side setback of 1.5m is proposed for the first floor addition from the southern boundary, and that under current conditions, access to sunlight for the northern windows of the adjoining building is limited to the laundry window only. No solar access is available to all of the other northern windows of the adjoining building on 21 June.

 

It should be noted that Council has adopted amendments to the DCP, relating to solar access, which reads:

 

“P9 The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.  Solar access is to be maximized to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings

 

 In order to minimise the overshadowing impact of the adjoining properties, it is recommended that the overall height of the building is reduced by 0.3m, by reducing the internal ceiling height and lowering the height of the external walls of the building, so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed RL15.34. The proposed height of the southern side elevation will be therefore reduced from 5.5m to 5.2m from the natural ground level, and the length of shadow during the winter solstice will also be reduce by approximately 1.0m. 

 

Having regard to the orientation of the site, the recent adopted amendments to the solar access performance requirements of the DCP, the possibility of lowering the height of the proposed addition and the compliance with the southern side setback requirement, the overshadowing is considered reasonable and complies with the performance requirement.

 

9.1.2    Side setback

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed setback for the ground floor addition and first floor addition is nil (0) to the northern boundary and 0.9m – 1.5m to the southern boundary. The setbacks do not comply with the preferred solution at the northern boundary however they match the existing building setbacks and wall positions of the original dwelling. The proposed side setback at the southern boundary will comply with the preferred solution of the DCP & will allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

9.1.3  Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Concerns are raised that the placement of windows in the first floor addition (rumpus room) will cause some overlooking of adjoining properties. In order to resolve this privacy/overlooking issue, it is recommended that a condition of consent is to be attached, which requires the sill height of the southern elevation of the mezzanine level windows be increased to a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be provided with fixed translucent, obscured or sandblasted glazing.

 

9.1.4  Height & Character of the building

 

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

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

It is to be noted that the applicant has attempt to utilise the natural slope of the site in order to lower the height and bulk of the proposed development. The proposed external wall height of the development is approximately 5.5m to 6.5m and will therefore comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. The proposal will also comply with the DCP height requirement in that, the second storey portion of the semidetached dwelling is setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form. Should the proposed second storey extension be above the existing foot-print of the building, the height of the first floor addition would be higher than the existing main ridge height (RL 15.64) and may be visible from Canberra Street.

 

The proposed height and siting of the second storey addition will maintain the character of the area and will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas. Should the sitting of the first floor addition be relocated further to the front above the existing foot print of the building, the proposed wall height of the development would increase and the forward position of the addition would not integrate with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling or the streetscape. The position of the first floor addition would be prominent from the street and be incompatible with the style, form and proportion of the existing dwelling and neighbouring dwelling. It would further exacerbates the asymmetry of a proposed first floor to only one half of a semi detached building. The bulk of the building would relate poorly to the adjoining semi-attached building and would be detrimental to the architectural integrity of the semi pair.

 

9.1.6  Loss of views

 

There will be no loss of any ocean, foreshore or significant district views. It is considered that the adjoining properties do not presently enjoy any significant views.

 

9.1.7  Streetscape/Appearance

 

The original dwelling will remain intact, and the visibility of the addition will be minimal from Canberra Street due to the proposed location of the addition, the setback from the front elevation and the slope of the land. Although the proposed rear addition is not within the existing footprint of the building, and is different to the majority of buildings on this side of Canberra Street (which are mainly single storey), the proposal would not be seen and would be in a form, which is generally in keeping with that envisaged for the area. The proposal will therefore be compatible with the existing character of the area and will not compromise the current appearance of the building.

 

 In term of streetscape, the first floor addition to the building observes a minimum setback of 25m to the front boundary.  The addition is adjoined on the northern and western side by a number of two storey brick buildings, which have frontages to Rainbow Street. In term of streetscape fit, the proposal may only be marginally visible from Canberra Street as the maximum proposed height of the development is to be no higher than the existing main ridge of the building. No objection is seen to this proposal provided that any approval requires a reduction in height.

 

9.1.8  Devaluation of adjoining properties

 

No evidence has been submitted in order to substantiate this claim. The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impact to the quality of the surrounding environment and it is therefore not anticipated that a loss of property value will occur.

 

9.1.9  Development in the vicinity of heritage items

 

The proposed development is on land within the vicinity of a heritage item, which is an electricity substation building built in 1930 at no 61 Canberra Street. Under Clause 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item. Given that the subject site is across the street and that the proposal will not be visible from the streetscape, it is considered that no adverse impact is likely to occur onto the heritage significance of the electricity substation building.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria contained in DCP- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0515/2002 for Alterations to ground floor and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house at 54 Canberra St, Randwick subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered AR/310/01 to 07 dated 07/03/02 and received by Council on 31/05/2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.         The height of the proposed addition at the rear (consisting of family room, storage and mezzanine) is to be reduced by 0.3m by:

 

i.      Reducing the internal ceiling height

ii.      Lowering the height of the external walls of the building

 

            so that the maximum height of the building does not exceed RL 15.340 and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

5.         The sill height of the mezzanine room southern windows are to be increased to a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below the specified level. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7          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.

 

8          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:

 

9          A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the proposed building work.

 

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

 

10        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.

 

11        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.

 

12        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.

 

13        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.

 

14        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.

 

15        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21        The applicant shall liaise with Sydney Water regarding their requirements for construction over the sewer line. Documentary evidence from Sydney Water confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

22        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

IDALY YAP

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 






 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 60/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

135-143 Beach Street,  Coogee

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2002

FILE NO:

DA 651/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 651/2002 for 135-143 Beach Street, Coogee for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 20 August 2002

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

20 August, 2002

FILE NO:

DA 651/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Fire Safety Upgrading of Coogee Surf Club

PROPERTY:

 135-143 Beach Street Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Management Committee of Coogee Surf Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application details fire safety upgrading of the existing Coogee Surf Club premises to enable the premises to be registered as a place of Public Entertainment.  The application is referred to Council as the land is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details upgraded fire safety to the existing building, including the provision of an additional means of egress from the function room, the installation of new fire doors, provision of new exit signs and the enclosure of the electricity meter box adjacent to the main entry door.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is sited on the southern side of Coogee Beach within Grant Reserve and the building is used as the headquarters for the Coogee Surf Club and associated social functions.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development on the 22nd July 2002, no response has been received.

 

5.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 6A Open Space under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

7.    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.

 

Clause 18 of the Randwick LEP states that the objectives of Zone 6A includes development that promotes, or is related to, the use and enjoyment of open space. It is considered that the proposed upgrading of the surf club premises falls is consistent with the objective of the 6A Zone.

 

Clause 38 of the Randwick LEP relates to development in open space zones and requires that Council give consideration to the need for the proposed development on that land, whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of the open space, the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land and the need to retain the land for it’s existing use.

 

It is not considered that there will be any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises in that the proposed development details only fire safety upgrading of the building, with the only external changes being the installation of a new egress door and steps to the function room.

It is considered that the proposed development, which will improve the existing levels of fire safety for the occupants of the building, promotes the use and enjoyment of the open space, and is in the public interest.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed upgrading works to the existing Coogee Surf Club complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.651/02 for permission to carryout fire safety upgrading works to the Coogee Surf Club subject to the following conditions: -                           

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans dated 9th February 2002 and received by Council on the 10th July 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         The 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.

 

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

 

3.         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.

 

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

 

4.         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.

 

5.         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.

 

6.         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.

 

7.         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.

 

8.         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.

 

9.         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.

 

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

 

10.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council, or a Council approved contractor, to undertake all civil works in Beach Street, (immediately west of the development site), as required to establish a pedestrian link between the paved area in Beach Street and the proposed club entry/exit points at Section 1-1 and Section 2-2. The subject civil works shall include, (but not be limited to), alterations to the existing retaining wall, alterations to the existing stainless steel handrail and alterations to the concrete capping units located on top of the retaining wall and adjacent to the entry/exit door at Section 1-1.

 

11.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

13.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level for the concrete slabs linking the proposed fire doors with the footpath in Beach Street must match the back of the existing paved footpath area at all points along the two slabs.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0924.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

14.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) 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.

 

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

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 61/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Cafe - Maroubra Beach)

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 433/2002 for 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Café – Maroubra Beach) for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 16 August 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Enclosed the open dining area of the Pavilion Cafe at Maroubra Beach and extend the existing seating area

PROPERTY:

 3R Marine Parade, MAROUBRA  (Pavilion Cafe - Maroubra Beach)

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 SEA TO SHORE PTY LTD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the subject property is Crown land under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

The estimated cost of development is $100,000.

 

In response to notification of the proposal, no submissions have been received.

 

The proposed enclosure of the existing kiosk/café is consistent with the objectives of the 6A Open Space zone and will not adversely impact on the amenity of locality.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the enclosure of an area outside the existing café/kiosk to provide an enclosed eating/ seating area. The applicant proposes the erection of powder- coated aluminium glazed doors, which will be positioned between the existing circular concrete columns. The enclosed area is to have a floor area of approximately 82.5m2.

 

No increase in the seating capacity is proposed, however, the applicant proposes to reposition tables and chairs beyond the existing leased area to take advantage of the weather conditions. The hours of operation is presently from 8.30 am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Saturday to Sunday and until 11.00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings during spring and summer. The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation to include evenings (until 11.00 pm) all year round. The number of employees is to be increased from 5 permanent and 5 casual staff to 8 permanent and 8 casual staff.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site consists of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion, which is situated in the central part of Maroubra Beach. Vehicle access to the site is gained via Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade. To the north there is beach, public open space, Maroubra Beach Commercial Area and residential development, to the south there is beach and the Arthur Byrne Reserve and the Anzac Rifle Range.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA 104/1983 was lodged to demolish the existing      Maroubra Beach Pavilion and erect a new beach pavilion comprising of concourse, change rooms/toilets, first aid, inspectors and police rooms, council store, lunchroom, storage areas and a medium sized dwelling over (caretaker’s residence), 232 car parking spaces and associated landscaping works. The application was approved on 13 October, 1983.

 

DA 306/1988  was lodged for permission to extend and enclose the existing kiosk facility. The application was approved on 12/10/88 subject to three (3) standard conditions. This consent was apparently not implemented and has subsequently lapsed.

 

DA 364/1996 was lodged for permission to enclose an area to the front of the existing kiosk to create an enclosed eating area and the provision of glazed roofing over the entrance and kiosk servery. The proposal was refused on 03/10/96 on the following reason: -

 

“ The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of Part 3 Clause 24 of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance in that it will result in the creation of a refreshment room, as defined in Part1 Clause 4 (1) the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance, within a 6 (a) zone.”

 

The proposal was for an intensification of the existing kiosk to include a  large enclosed dining area than existing.  Due to the nature of the proposed development, it was considered at that time sufficient to result in a change from a kiosk to a refreshment room type of use, which was prohibited within a 6 (a) zone under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance. Restaurants are now a permissible use in the 6A Open Space zone under Randwick LEP 1998.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No objections have been received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was referred to Council’s Parks and Recreation Coordinator and the following response was received on the 16 August 2002.

 

An application has been received from the Licensee of the Pavilion Café at Maroubra Beach to re-position tables and chairs beyond the existing approved licensed area to take advantage of weather conditions and also to enclose part of the existing license area by replacing the existing clear PVC windbreaks with fold back glass doors.  The applicant further advises in the proposal that there is no plan to increase the seating capacity at this time.

 

Background

 

Tenders were called for the operation of the Maroubra Beach kiosk during 2000 and the tender was awarded to See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café.  A 5-year Licence Agreement was executed on the 28th of May 2001 with the License period being January 1, 2001 and terminating on 31st December 2005. No option exists for extension of the License period.  The License Fee payable to Council in the initial year was $39,000 with the second and subsequent years rental being adjusted by CPI.  The tendered amount was within the expected range and close to the amount specified by the Valuation Report commissioned by Council.

 

At the time of calling for tenders, the kiosk was in a dilapidated state requiring significant work including repainting, repairs and improvements to the building to provide adequate security.  Since the commencement of trading at the kiosk/café, the outdoor eating area was covered and the Licensee erected a clear PVC weather protection system to enable patrons to have a meal in relative protection from the wind and other inclement weather.  The system is somewhat cumbersome, requiring daily erection and dismantling and over time may be prone to deterioration and loss of visibility through the clear PVC.

 

Issues

 

The proposal put forward by the Licensee to install fold back glass doors is supported as it will provide a better environment for both patrons of the kiosk/café and will improve the aesthetic of the building when viewed from the beach.  When not in use or at night, the door system will be retracted against the existing columns and secured with fold back grills.  This will allow general access across the outdoor part of the License area, thus complying with the License Agreement and requirements of the DLWC Food And Beverage Policy.

 

The proposal to permit diners to take advantage of the weather by providing a more flexible seating arrangement is also supported, as it is a logical proposal given the nature of the activity of the varying weather conditions experienced at the beachfront.

 

Clause 43 of the License Agreement permits the Licensee at its own cost to provide other plant, materials and equipment of whatever kind necessary to fulfil the requirements of the License.  Part 3 of Clause 43 states:

 

All plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings including new or replacement items purchased during the course of the License period or any renewal of this License period remain the property of the Licensor at all times, unless otherwise agreed.

 

Part 4 of Clause 43 states:

 

The Licensor may upgrade or purchase additional plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.  The decision to do this would be based on a business case put forward to the Licensor by the Licensee, which would include the costs and benefits and an adjustment to the net cost to the Licensor.

 

This matter is raised for the following reasons:

 

1.   Council, as Licensor may elect to fund the capital improvement and to then adjust the License Fee

 

 Or;

 

2.   Approve the installation of the fixtures by the Licensee on the understanding that at the expiry of the License, the fixtures remain the property of the Licensor and that approval for the works in no way implies that the License period is to be extended renewed.

 

Funds have not been provided for the works as proposed by the Licensee hence it would be recommended that Council pursue its option detailed under item 2.

 

Recommendations

 

No objection is raised to the application lodged by See to Shore to install fold back aluminum and glass fold back doors and to permit an extension to the area to be used for outdoor dining subject to the following conditions:

 

The Licensee pay for all costs associated with the proposal;

 

The Licensee agreement is amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits to the License area with costs for the amendments being borne by the Licensee;

 

In accordance with Clause 43, Part 3, the improvements remain the property of the Licensor;

 

There is no increase in the seating capacity of the kiosk/café.

 

The Licensee be advised that this approval does not in any way confer or imply that the License Period will be extended or renewed other than may be permitted in the License Agreement.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Open Space 6 (a) Recreation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity (restaurants) is permissible.

 

Clause 38(2) of the LEP requires the Council to consider the following issues prior determining an application on land within Zone No 6(a): -

 

“  a.   the need for the proposed development on the land, and

b.   whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

c.   the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

d.   the need to retain the land for it’s existing or likely future use.”

 

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Impact on adjoining uses

 

In 1994 Council commissioned a Plan of Management Overview, which was adopted in September 1996. In 1997 Keys Young prepared an Urban Design and Planning Strategy for the commercial precinct. Keys Young used these studies as a base to develop the Master Plan for Maroubra Beach adopted in 1998.  The proposed development is appropriately sited within the Maroubra Beach area and is consistent with the plan of management.

 

It is considered that the proposal is related to and will promote the use and enjoyment of Maroubra Beach. The dining area is covered by a license agreement with Council and the proposal will provide the majority of the customers’ protection from the wind, rain and other varying weather conditions at the beachfront. The majority of customers are likely to be those utilising the adjacent beach and public open space.

 

It is considered that the development will not have any significant adverse impact on the other uses contained within the Maroubra Beach Pavilion or surrounding area, or that it will detrimentally impaction likely future use and character of the land.

 

8.2       Design

 

The design of the proposed enclosure is consistent with the character of the existing building and will not have any impact on the visual amenity of the area.

 

8.3       Acid Sulphate soils

 

The subject land has been defined to be affected by acid sulphate soils. However given that no excavation is proposed, it is considered that no disturbance to the acid sulphate soils is likely to occur.

 

8.4       Parking

 

The proposed access and loading/unloading and service facilities are to remain unchanged. The existing building and surrounding uses for the beach and public open space are well served by off-street car parking. There being a large car park immediately to the west of the pavilion building. As it is considered that the patrons of the enclosed seating area are most likely to be those already utilising the beach/open space and that no increase is proposed to the existing seating capacity of the kiosk/cafe, it is not considered that additional car parking spaces are required for this development.

 

 8.5      Hours of operation

 

The current hours of operation for the Pavilion kiosk/café are: -

 

Monday to Friday             8.30 am to 5.00pm

Saturday to Sunday          8.00 am to 5.30 pm

Friday and Saturday evenings (during Spring and Summer)             until 11.00 pm.

 

The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation to include evenings from Monday to Sunday (until 11.00 pm) all year round. Whilst the Licence Agreement currently allows the applicant to trade within the hours from 7.00 am to no later than 12.00 midnight, it is considered that the proposed use should not be intensified given it’s close proximity to residential dwelling situated within the pavilion building. Should the application be approved, it is therefore recommended that a condition is attached to restrict the hours of operation from 7.00 am to 10.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 11.00 pm Friday to Saturday.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development meets all relevant statutory requirements and will not have adverse environmental impact. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0433/2002 for Enclosed the open dining area of the pavilion cafe at Maroubra Beach and extend the existing seating area at 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Cafe- Maroubra Beach) subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising of three (3) sheets numbered sheet 1 of 3 to sheet 3 of 3 dated 06/05/2002, received by Council on 14 May 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The hours of operation for the Pavilion kiosk/café are restricted from 7.00 am to 10.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 11.00 pm Friday to Saturday.

 

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

 

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

 

2.         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.

 

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:

 

3.         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.

 

4.         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.

 

5.         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.

 

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

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council's approval and relevant standards of construction, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

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

 

8.         Building materials, sand, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

9.         The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall meet all costs associated with the proposal.

 

10.       Prior to the operation of the extended seating area, the existing Licensee Agreement shall be amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits of the Licensed seating area. All costs associated with amending the license agreement shall be met by the Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café). The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0899), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

11.       There shall be no increase in the seating capacity of the kiosk/café.

 

12.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall ensure that the kiosk/café licensed area is maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

 

13.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall ensure that the pavement of the kiosk/café licensed area is maintained free of grease and other foodstuffs at all times.

 

14.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall, during the term of the agreement with Council, abide with any current or future Council Policy, Resolution or directive relative to the consumption of alcohol in public spaces.

 

15.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall abide with any directive given by any utility authority in relation to access requirement to any utility within the proposed kiosk/café licensed area.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

The applicant is advised that this approval does not in any way confer or imply that the License Period will be extended or renewed other than may be permitted in the existing License Agreement.

 

The applicant is advised that in accordance with Clause 43, Part 3, of the existing License agreement the improvements remain the property of the Licensor, Randwick City Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 





 

MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

10.1     By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Traffic Islands on McCauley, Harold and Raymond Streets, Matraville.  (98/S/0178(3) xr R/0482/02)

 

That in view of the high usage of McCauley, Harold and Raymond Streets Matraville by super tankers and large trucks, that the possibility of traffic islands being installed to prevent access by these large vehicles, be referred to this traffic committee as a matter of urgency and a report on this issue be referred back to the Works Committee.

 

10.2     By Councillor Schick – Re-routing the 302, 357 and 359 Bus Services.  (98/S/0178)(3) xr 98/S/0959(5)

 

As a result of the recently revised bus service arrangements, both the residents of the West Ward and the Kingsford Commercial Centre are currently experiencing difficulties with the rerouting of the 302, 357 and 359 services.

 

Urgent representation be made to the Hon. Carl Scully – Minister for Transport to seek the reinstatement of these services.

 

10.3          By Councillor Bastic – Increased Funding to the Windgap Foundation Ltd and other Service Providers.  (98/S/0178(3) xr 98/S/1635)

 

That:

 

a)         Randwick Council call on each of the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments to immediately provide increased funding to Windgap Foundation Limited, and other providers of service to people with disabilities within the City of Randwick, equivalent to the increased costs incurred by Windgap Foundation Limited, and those other service providers, as a result of the implementation of the SACS Award;

 

b)         Each of the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments make provision in each funding agreement for the provision of funding to Windgap Foundation Limited, and other providers of services within the City of Randwick, for automatic increase in funding to meet cost increases incurred by Windgap Foundation Limited or such other service providers as a result of any increase in wages granted to employees under any award governing the employment of employees of Windgap Foundation Limited, and such other service providers, increases in workers compensation insurance premiums, increase in public liability insurance premiums and all other non-discretionary cost increases incurred in the provision of services to people with disabilities within the City of Randwick; and

 

c)         The Council of the City of Randwick recognises the untiring and unselfish service provided by volunteer directors, families, carers and staff of Windgap Foundation Limited, and other providers of service to people with disabilities within the City of Randwick, and calls upon each of the Commonwealth and New South Wales Government to provide increased funding to meet unmet needs of people with disabilities living within the City of Randwick, particularly aged carers and aged people with an intellectual disability.

 

10.4     By Councillor Bastic – Civic Reception for former Vice Chancellor of University of N.S.W.  (98/S/0178(3))

 

That a civic reception be held in honour of the former Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Mr John Niland.

 

10.5     By Councillor Notley-Smith – Rainbow Street Pedestrian Crossing.  (98/S/0178(3) xr R/0635/02(2)

 

That Randwick City Council Traffic Committee investigate and prepare a report for the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on the pedestrian crossing in Rainbow Street, Kingsford, adjacent to the Kingsford roundabout.  The Committee’s report should contain, but not be limited to, the site’s accident history any recent associated works, possible options for relocation, traffic calming, increasing visibility and any measure the Committee can recommend to enhance the safety of the crossing.

 

10.6     By Councillors Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Sullivan and White – Providing footpaths to all streets in South and Central Wards.  (98/S/0178(3) xr 98/S/0185)

 

That a report be brought before Council detailing a five-year programme to provide footpaths to all streets in South Ward and Central Ward.