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

 

18th October, 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, 22ND OCTOBER. 2002 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5          Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 17/2002  - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS.

2

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2002 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL'S SEAL.

4

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2002 - FINANCIAL REPORTS - 2001/2002.

6

 


 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 118/2002 - KENSINGTON / WEST KINGSFORD LATM SCHEME - PROPOSED TRIAL IN WEST KENSINGTON.

10

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 119/2002 - REVIEW OF 1996 MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME.

12

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 120/2002 - SSROC ENERGY TENDER FOR PUBLIC LIGHTING.

17

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 121/2002 - PURCHASE OF BEACH CLEANER.

21

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 122/2002 - GREEN WASTE AND RECYCLING WASTE SITE.

26

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 123/2002 - TENDER 5/02 REPLACEMENT OF GARBAGE COMPACTORS.

33

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES’ REPORT 124/2002 – ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AT MALABAR POOL.

39

 

7.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 125/2002 - ENERGY AUSTRALIA'S "PURE ENERGY" PROGRAM.

42

 

7.9                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 126/2002 - MALABAR HEADLAND.

49

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 36/2002 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ANTI-CORRUPTION) ACT, 2002.

54

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 37/2002 - SSROC TENDER FOR STATIONERY.

57

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 73/2002 - 1094-1118 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

63

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 74/2002 - 36 MCKEON STREET, MAROUBRA.

81

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 75/2002 - 15A WILSON STREET, MAROUBRA.

151

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 76/2002 - 15B WILSON STREET, MAROUBRA.

160

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 77/2002 - 4 WILSON STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

168

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 78/2002 - PROPOSED AGED CARE FACILITY FOR MONTEFIORRE JEWISH HOME – 100-120 KING STREET, RANDWICK.

191

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Schick – Waiving of Fees – Salvation Army Christmas Carols.

264

11.2

By Councillor Andrews – Frequency of Cleaning Council’s Toilets.

264

11.3

By Councillor Andrews – Improvements to Council Toilets at Maroubra Beach Pavilion.

264

11.4

By Councillor Andrews – Upgrading of Intersection on Anzac Parade/Maroubra Road.

264

11.5

By Councillor Andrews – Installation of Traffic Signals at Intersection of Anzac Parade/Storey Street

264

11.6

By Councillor Andrews – Insallation of Traffic Signals at Intersection of Haig Street/Anzac Parade crossover. 

264

11.7

By Councillor Andrews – Registration of Graffiti Tags

264

11.8

By Councillor Seng – Risk Management Strategy.

265

11.9

By Councillor Seng – Receipt of Correspondence.

265

11.10

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Doncaster Avenue.

265

11.11

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Public Toilet Facilities. 

265

11.12

By Councillor Matson – Consideration of Public Drinking Restrictions in areas adjacent to Coogee beach.

265

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 17/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS

 

 

DATE:

10 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0077

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report draws to the attention of the Council the provisions of the Local Government Act relating to requirements for General Managers with respect to the lodgement and tabling of Disclosure of Interest Returns.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest returns in accordance with Section 449 and Schedule 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation. Section 450(A) of the Act requires General Managers to keep a Register of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30th September, 2002).

 

In tabling the Register of Disclosure of Interests, I report that all Councillors and staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed time, with the exception of T. Kulchar (was on annual leave and has since been submitted on 8th October, 2002) D Foster (on annual leave until November 2002) and S Botic (on sick leave until November, 2002) , all of whom are employed in the Planning and Community Development Department. The Director of that Department will ensure the Disclosure Returns are submitted by those staff members upon their return from leave.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is now necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Register to be tabled at this Council Meeting and the Council has discharged its duty in relation to the past disclosure year, subject to lodgement of the two outstanding returns.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the contents of the General Manager’s Report 17/2002 dated 10th October, 2002 be received and noted; and

 

(b)        it be noted that the Disclosure of Interests Register has been tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22nd October, 2002.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL'S SEAL

 

 

DATE:

4 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/002/2002, D/0367/2002, D/0551/2001, P/001140, P/003462,  P/004317

 

 

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 licence agreements between Council and:

 

1.         John Janis for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 3/73 Belmore Road, Randwick;

 

2.         Antionette Jowett and Tracey Novak for the purpose of outdoor dining at 220 Clovelly Road, Clovelly;

 

3.         Robert Destro for the purpose of outdoor dining at 236 Coogee Bay Road,  Coogee;

 

4.         Pasquale Stramandinoli for the purpose of outdoor dining at 24-26 St. Pauls Street, Randwick;

 

5.         Catherine Yip for purpose of outdoor dining at 36 St Pauls Street, Randwick; and

 

6.         Graham Bailey, Helen Bailey and Justin Bailey for the lease agreement for 17 Blenheim Street, Randwick.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the licence agreements between Council and –

 

1.         John Janis for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 3/73 Belmore Road, Randwick;

 

2.         Antionette Jowett and Tracey Novak for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 220 Clovelly Road, Clovelly;

 

3.         Robert Destro for the purpose of outdoor dining at 236 Coogee Bay Road,   Coogee;

 

4.         Pasquale Stramandinoli for the purpose of outdoor dining at 24-26 St. Pauls Street, Randwick;

 

5.         Catherine Yip for purpose of outdoor dining at 36 St Pauls Street, Randwick; and

 

6.         Grahame Bailey, Helen Bailey and Justin Bailey for a lease agreement for 17 Blenheim Street, Randwick.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FINANCIAL REPORTS - 2001/2002

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0043 XR 98/S/3562

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To report on Council’s statutory financial reports and budget result for the year 2001/2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act, 1993 requires the preparation of financial reports, which must be completed within a period of four months after the end of the financial year.  These reports must include statements made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor and at least one other councillor as well as the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

A copy of the financial reports is tabled.

 

These financial reports must then be referred to the Council’s Auditors, and once audited these financial reports must be included in the Council’s Annual Report.

 

As well, as soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the Auditors’ report, public notice must be given of a meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports together with the Auditors’ report.

 

It is proposed that the audited financial reports be presented at the Council meeting to be held on 26 November 2002 and arrangements will be made to publicise the meeting in the local press.

 

A separate statement is attached providing detailed information on the financial result compared to the Council’s 2001/2002 budget.

 

A further report as to the overall financial position will be provided on completion of the audit.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2002 be adopted.

 

2.         That in relation to the statements required in accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993: -

 

(a)        Council resolve that in its opinion the general purpose financial

report and the special purpose financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2002 and special schedules are properly drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations there under.

 

(b)        That the statements be approved and signed by the Mayor, another

Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

3.         That copies of the financial reports be referred to Council’s Auditors for audit.

 

4.         That the audited financial statements be presented at a meeting of council to be held on 26 November 2002 in accordance with Section 418 of the local Government Act, 1993.

 

5.         That the Budget Result Statement (Attachment “1” for the year ended 30 June 2002) be noted.

 

6.         That the items to be carried over from the 2001/2002 to the 2002/2003, referred to Attachment “1”, be approved and voted for expenditure in 2002/2003 in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999.

 

7.         That the transfer to the IT Replacement Reserves identified in Attachment “1” be endorsed.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Financial results for the 12 months ending 30 June, 2002.

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT NO 1                          

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 JUNE 2002

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

 98/S/3562

 

 

REPORT BY:            MANAGER – FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To review of Council’s financial results against budget for the 12 months ending 30 June 20002 and seek approval for those projects not completed in that financial year to be carried over to the current financial year.

 

ISSUES:

 

The accounts for the twelve months ending 30 June 2002 have now been finalized.

 

Clause 15(3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999 states that all expenditure approvals and votes lapse at the end of a council’s financial year, except for:

 

·    works carried out or started, or contracted to be carried out, for the council; or

·    any services provided, or contracted to be provided, for the council; or

·    goods or materials provided, or contracted to be provided, for the council; or

·    facilities provided or started, or contracted to be provided, for the council, before the end of the year concerned or to the payment of remuneration to members of the council’s staff.

 

Consistent with this clause, Program Managers have identified works approved for expenditure in 2002/03 which have commenced or for which Council is contracted/committed or for which external funding such as grants, contributions, etc have been provided

 

 A schedule of those projects recommended for revoting in the financial year 2002/2003 is tabled.

 

 

 

 

 

30 JUNE 2002 BUDGET RESULTS SUMMARY:

 

A principal activity summary of the 2001/02 budget results (including projects recommended for revoting in 2001/2002) follows: -

 


“Budget” and “Actual” figures exclude depreciation.

 

 

COMMENT

 

The overall result is considered most satisfactory and it is recommended that the surplus be held in reserves as part cost of the replacement of Council’s computer system ($2,067,116).


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 118/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

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

 

 

DATE:

26 September, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4405

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council, at its meeting held on 27 August 2002, considered a detailed report and advice from the Randwick Traffic Committee on Council’s earlier resolution of 14 May 2002 that recommended conducting a three month trial of proposed traffic measures in West Kensington.

 

Consequently, Council on 27 August 2002 resolved that:

 

“a)       No action be taken to partially close Virginia Street, McDougall Street or Milroy Avenue at Lenthall Street; and

 

b)         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 and a report be brought back to the October Council meeting on the matter.”

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Having regard to part b) of the above Council resolution, Council’s traffic consultant was 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 and provide advice for this Council meeting.

 

However, the consultant has been unable to meet this report deadline due to other work commitments and his detailed involvement with the Kensington UIP project.

 

In discussions with the consultant, he has advised that a draft plan of the proposed Kensington/West Kingsford LATM scheme will be available this month.

 

It is intended to discuss the draft plan with the Mayor prior to the scheme being displayed for public consultation.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Following the display of the draft scheme and the receipt of residents’ comments, a report will be forwarded to the Randwick Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

The advice of the Traffic Committee and views of the residents will then be reported to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 119/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF 1996 MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1654

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 8 October 2002, considered a report prepared by Council’s Traffic Engineer that also included a final report prepared by Council’s traffic consultant – Transport & Urban Planning who were engaged to review the 1996 Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme and prepare a current traffic management scheme in accordance with an earlier resolution of Council.

 

A copy of the report considered by the Traffic Committee is attached.

 

ISSUES:

 

At the Traffic Committee meeting held on 8 October 2002, the following comments were minuted:

 

“The Traffic Engineer advised that the recommendations contained in the agenda were generally in accordance with those contained within the consultant’s report, although some priorities had been amended.

 

Cr Andrews addressed the meeting:

 

-     The Consultant has not taken the Defence development into consideration.

-     Part B of the recommendation should be put on hold, because vehicles travelling east-west will increase along Moverly Road - Snape Street.

-     Snape Street is not 11.1 metres wide as stated and should not be compared to Moverly Road (cars can flow easily in Moverly Road)

-     A roundabout should be installed at Percival Street and Snape Street.

-     If Snape Street is a Collector road, cars should be able to flow freely, whereas residents have trouble getting in and out of their driveways, there are minor accidents, the residents want safety, maybe kerb blisters.

-     Mt Sinai has not been considered; traffic banks up in Hannan Street due to drop-off and pick-up arrangements.

-     Crossover median road in Anzac Parade near Storey Street should remain two way and traffic lights should be installed at Anzac Parade immediately.

-     Concerned about safety exiting Runic Lane into Anzac Parade when the pedestrian signals are removed following completion of the pedestrian bridge.

-     Anzac Parade / Maroubra Road is a major blackspot, wants the RTA to fix the problems there - has not been addressed at all in the report and requested right turn in single movement from Anzac Parade (southbound) to Maroubra Road. (John Stephens advised that the RTA has stated that the intersection is operating at optimum efficiency.)

-     Avoca Street / Anzac Parade is a dangerous intersection - motorists travelling south cross over 3 lanes to get onto the Snape Street crossover.  (Not addressed in the report.)

-     Cooper Street / Maroubra Road - wants similar treatment to Flower Street / Maroubra Road.

 

The Traffic Engineer (John Stephens) responded to Cr Andrews’ comments:

 

-     the minutes of the Traffic Committee meeting will go to Council for its consideration.

-     The consultant was aware of the Defence development although it may not have been specifically mentioned in the report.  The study brief did not include assessment of nearby intersections and it was considered that the consultant’s report was quite acceptable and detailed.  (The Police representative also considered the report to be acceptable).

-     agreed that the road widths are not the same in Moverly Road and Snape Street, which are both Collector roads.

-     noted that many residents in the city area have difficulty in reversing in and out of driveways.

-     Mt Sinai College - the Police representative, Traffic Engineer and 3 Rangers had recently inspected traffic conditions in Hannan Street in the vicinity of the school.  The main concern is that the school has not provided a traffic marshall as conditioned by Council.  Better marshalling is needed.  A short-term solution could be the provision of part time PM ‘No Stopping, 2.30pm-3.30pm School Days’ restrictions in Hannan Street.  Will have an affect on residents though, a difficult situation with the residents.  However, marshalling was considered necessary.

-     pedestrian signals will be moved by the RTA when overhead pedestrian bridge goes in.  There will be advertising on bridge, may cause distraction problems for motorists should traffic signals be installed in Anzac Parade at Storey Street.

 

John Palmer (Sydney Buses) advised that Friday and Saturday nights were much worse due to the large numbers of people attending the synagogue - traffic does not move at all, whereas it’s only ½ hour or so traffic disruption after school.

 

Sgt. Gary Thompson’s comments:

 

-     Snape Street is not busy, but agrees more linemarking is needed.

-     If Snape Street is made wider - traffic speeds would increase, the way it is now is self-enforceable.

-     Supports traffic lights at Anzac Parade / Storey Street, but Council didn’t want lights there.

-     Should Council support a roundabout at Hannan Street / Snape Street with the partial closure of Smith Street - must consult residents on that proposal.

-     Storey Street / Anzac Parade cross-over road - the location of the existing ‘Stop’ signs / lines needs to be reviewed and maybe brought closer to Anzac Parade to improve sight distance for motorists.

 

John Stephens - the feasibility of providing a roundabout in Snape Street at Hannan Street - Smith Street will be considered in the detailed design stage.

 

Cr Andrews suggested extending the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions in Snape Street between Bunnerong Road and Chapman Avenue.  John Stephens advised that this proposal had been previously considered and was not favoured by the Committee.

 

It was advised that State Transit buses were still using Snape Street.  Stuart Lakin will follow up.  Jason Scoufis will arrange for additional signs for buses.”

 

Generally, the Randwick Traffic Committee accepted the report’s recommendations and also reiterated its previous advice to not support:

 

·    The provision of a seagull island in Snape Street at Anzac Parade,

·    The road closure of Storey Street at Royal Street and

·    The restriction of the Anzac Parade median crossover road near Storey Street to an eastbound one-way traffic flow.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This report provides recommendations to assist Council in finalising the implementation of the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme and in accordance with Council’s resolution of 27 March 2001 and the previous advice received from the Chairman of the Regional Traffic Committee.

 

Whilst a number of the treatments have been suggested for referral to the RTA for 50:50 financial support, Council on 27 March 2001 resolved to transfer the budgeted allocation of $85,000 for the closure of Storey Street ($40,000) and seagull island in Snape Street ($45,000) into Reserves until the revised traffic management plan was implemented.

 

Accordingly, the current works programme includes the provision of traffic facilities for both Storey Street and Snape Street, subject to Council’s resolution.  As mentioned above, the Traffic Committee again did not support the closure of Storey Street or installation of a seagull island in Snape Street at Anzac Parade.

 

Having regard to the treatment of Storey Street, Council’s traffic consultant did not support the closure of Storey Street and recommended the provision of kerb blisters and edge lines between Percival Street and Hannan Street.

It is also considered that the provision of a slow point in this section of Storey Street would be of merit and should be investigated.

 

Council also on 27 March 2001 resolved that “Roundabouts be constructed at the intersection of Snape Street / Hannan Street and Snape Street / Irvine Street, Maroubra, subject to the revised Traffic Management Plan to be prepared by the Traffic Consultant.

 

The above intersections have been recommended for treatment with roundabouts as a matter of urgency.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)   Following the recent review of the 1996 Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme, the following treatments be either constructed, referred to the RTA for funding assistance, or be further investigated:

 

a)   Bunnerong Road / Glanfield Street (Proposed PM Peak “No Right Turn” Restriction)

 

Defer for further investigation of possible impacts and suitability.

 

b)   Anzac Parade, cross-over median road near Storey Street (Proposed one-way traffic flow)

 

One way traffic flow in cross-over not supported.

 

c)   Maroubra Road / Anzac Parade Commercial District (Proposed Pedestrian Safety Study)

 

Refer to RTA for investigation.

 

d)   Maroubra Road / Royal Street (Roundabout Proposal)

 

The intersection be monitored for future consideration of the provision of a roundabout.

 

e)   Snape Street - Intersections of Irvine Street and Hannan Street (Proposed mini-roundabouts)

 

The above roundabouts be listed for design and construction as a matter of urgency.  The residents of Smith Street be advised of the proposed partial closure of Hannan Street, subject to final design of roundabout.

 

f)    Storey Street between Percival Street and Hannan Street (Proposed kerb blisters and edge lines.)

 

The above treatments, including the provision of a slow point be listed for design and construction as a matter of urgency.

 

g)   Boyce Road / Royal Street       )  Proposed median islands

Boyce Road / Hannan Street   )  with signage   

Gale Road / Royal Street         )

 

The above treatments be referred to the RTA for funding assistance.

 

h)   Storey Street (Anzac Parade - Fowler Crescent) - Proposed kerb blisters and linemarking for parking lanes.

 

The treatments be referred to the RTA for funding assistance.

 

i)    Gale Road / Flower Street - Proposed median islands with signage.

 

 The treatments be referred to the RTA for funding assistance.

 

j)    Storey Street / Flower Street - proposed mini-roundabout.

 

The intersection be monitored for future consideration of the provision of a roundabout.

 

k)   Boyce Road / Cooper Street - Proposed mini-roundabout.

 

The treatment be referred to the RTA for funding assistance.

 

l)    Holmes Street / Garden Street - Proposed mini-roundabout.

 

The intersection be monitored for future consideration of the provision of a roundabout.

 

2)   THAT no action be taken to construct a seagull island in Snape Street at Anzac Parade.

 

3)     THAT no action be taken to close Storey Street at Royal Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of report to October 2002 Randwick Traffic Committee. (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 120/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SSROC Energy Tender for Public Lighting

 

 

DATE:

15 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0791

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at it meeting held on the 28 May 2002 resolved that:

 

(a)  Council receive and note the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report 59/2002 on the tender for energy for public lighting;

 

(b)  Council accept the offer tendered by Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a period of 24 months; and

 

(c)  Council enter into a contract with Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a 1 July 2002 start up.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The NSW electricity market has been de-regulated and consequently opened to competition, effective 1 January 2002.  Early in April 2002, the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) invited tenders on behalf of member councils and Burwood Council for the provision of energy for public lighting for a two-year period commencing 1 July 2002.  Burwood’s inclusion in the tender process came about as a result of that Council’s request.

 

As a result of the tender process SSROC developed a Model Report to Participating Councils on the 13 May 2002. This was presented to Council as an attachment to the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report 59/2002 entitled “Tender For Provision of Power for Public Lighting” on 28 May 2002. Council resolved at this meeting to adopt SSROC’s recommendations to engage Energex as supplier of Council’s street lighting energy (as stated above).

 

Whilst the abovementioned report (59/2002) was presented at the subsequent Council meeting following receipt of SSROC’s Model Report and recommendations, Council’s meeting date (28 May 2002) fell after the expiry of the Energex tendered pricing validity date (24 May 2002). As such Energex was unable to guarantee the original price tendered to SSROC.

 

Following is an excerpt from SSROC’s Model Report, dated 13 May 2002, regarding the validity of Energex’s tendered price.

 

Pricing Validity

“The electricity market is extremely volatile, and subject to rise and fall every 30 minutes. Retailers are therefore unable to offer extended, unconditional validity due to the risk taken by the retailer in the market.

 

The Energex offer is currently open for acceptance until 24 May 2002. Energex will review the market, and extend the offered price on a fortnightly basis. Council should note that the current price of $0.03150 per kWh has stayed secure since October 2001, and although not certain, it is not likely to rise before the end of June. The tendered price will be immediately secured upon Council signing a letter of intent to take up the offer.”

 

Unfortunately, as outlined in the following excerpt from email correspondence to Council from the executive director of SSROC, Ms Melissa Gibbs, due to weather conditions and other factors outside the control of Energex, SSROC or Council the wholesale price of energy rose dramatically during May and June.

 

“Due to the volatility in the energy market in NSW, the Energex pricing is currently not valid. SSROC has received the following advice from Energex:

 

“Currently the market is way up in NSW, and climbing. This could continue through winter or subside within a week or so. At this current level ENERGEX cannot accept any public lighting contracts. If SSROC organize their Council approvals, and the market comes back within the level quoted, we can then quickly lock in and do business. This might mean that start dates are delayed by 2 – 4 weeks”

 

 

The [SSROC] TENDER PANEL has discussed this situation, and based on the advice from Energex, RECOMMENDS that Councils continue with the formal approval process, and allow Energex to quickly lock in when the market comes back to the level quoted.”

 

Acting on the advice of SSROC, Council continued with the formal process of engaging Energex, notifying SSROC by mail of Councils resolution to accept the Energex proposal in anticipation of the price returning to a level acceptable to Energex.

 

Further correspondence was then received from SSROC stating:

 

“As you are aware, the electricity market in NSW is still extremely volatile. Due to the current volatility, Energex is unable to offer contracts to Councils lodging their letter of intent after the tender validity period. Marrickville Council lodged their unconditional letter of intent during the tender validity period and is in the process of receiving a contract from Energex.

Energex has advised that there is no sign of NSW electricity prices dropping in the foreseeable future. Consequently, Energex is not able to extend the tender validity period of the original offer.

 

SSROC’s tender panel for this contract has conferred. Following discussion, the panel suggests that the options for Councils within the tender process appear to be:

 

a)   Do nothing and enter into a contract when energy prices drop (this is not likely to eventuate in the foreseeable future)

 

b)   Recall tenders (not a preferred option in the current volatile market)

 

c)   Consider other options (the NSW Supply contract is still available to Councils).

 

Faced with these options, the tender panel RECOMMENDS that participating Councils (with the exception of Marrickville) enter into an arrangement under the NSW Supply contract, which is still available at the previously advertised price.”

 

Under its current agreement, Council is currently charged $0.04185 per kWh for street lighting energy by Energy Australia. As outlined within the SSROC Model Report to Participating Councils the NSW Supply negotiated rate with Energy Australia is $0.03225 per kWh (as compared to the now unavailable tendered rate from Energex being $0.03150 per kWh). The NSW Supply/Energy Australia offered rate is valid until 30 June 2003.

 

As of September 2002, SSROC and Next Energy, consultants for SSROC, are in the process of developing a Service Agreement for Public Lighting Services in the Energy Australia Distribution Territory. SSROC recently held a workshop on 27 September 2002 with Council representatives from participating Councils to further develop SSROC’s proposed service agreement. A suitable Service Agreement between Energy Australia and Randwick City Council may then be developed in consultation with SSROC and Next Energy.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Under the current arrangement with Energy Australia Council pays on average approximately $0.04185 per kWh for street lighting energy. Adoption of the NSW Supply/Energy Australia offered rate is estimated to save Council approximately $4,200.00 per month.

 

In view of the inability of Energex to provide a similar rate to that tendered to SSROC previously, or at a lower rate than that offered through NSW Supply’s negotiations with Energy Australia, the recommendation of SSROC is to accept the NSW Supply/Energy Australia rate and enter into a contractual arrangement for the provision of street lighting energy with Energy Australia.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)  Council not proceed to implement its’ previous decision to accept the offer tendered by Maps and Energex Retail Pty. Ltd. and enter into a contract with Maps and Energex Retail Pty. Ltd for the provision of street lighting energy;

 

(b)  Council adopt the recommendations of SSROC to accept the offer provided by NSW Supply/Energy Australia for the provision of street lighting energy;

 

(c)  Council enter into a contractual arrangement with Energy Australia, based upon the SSROC Proposed Service Agreement for Public Lighting Services in Energy Australia’s Distribution Territory, after consultation with SSROC Next Energy.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANDREW ZAGNINSKI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER - ANCILLARY

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 121/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PURCHASE OF BEACH CLEANER

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2453

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Tenders closing on the 15 October 2002 were called for the supply of one only trailer style beach cleaning machine. The advertisement placed in the Sydney Morning Herald was run on September 24 and October 1. In addition to the advertising campaign the known suppliers in the Australian market were contacted and advised that the opportunity to tender was available.

 

Background

 

Council has been openly criticised for the quality of cleaning conducted on the beaches. The main thrust of the complaints has been aimed at small items of litter that are difficult to collect with a rake style beach cleaner.

 

The most effective way to improve the cleaning with a mechanical system is to introduce screening as well as raking.

 

To improve the efficiency of the beach cleaning operation and obtain better value for money it would be desirable to introduce a machine that can carry debris in addition to raking and screening. If the beach cleaner was able to carry the spoil collected the resources currently supporting this operation could be redeployed or sold if no longer required.

 

It is proposed to operate the unit on a seven day roster with work commencing at 4.00 am to maximise the cleaning potential of the unit and minimise the inconvenience to beach users.

 

Funding

 

At the time the budget was adopted no allocation had been made to allow for the purchase of an additional beach cleaner. The net cost of replacement can be funded from the Plant Replacement Reserve. Selling the truck currently being used to transport debris to the tip can also offset the replacement cost.

 

RESPONSES TO TENDER

 

Jetco Engineering suppliers of the Barber Beach Rake range of equipment declined the invitation to tender, as they were not in a position to offer a unit that was capable of screening and carrying a large volume of debris.

 

East Coast Environmental Supplies agents for the Boss beach cleaner also declined to tender, as they do not have a model in the range with sufficient capacity to carry the volume of spoil required.

 

A conforming tender was received from Sno-Quip Pty Ltd offering the Beach Tech 3000.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Technical evaluation

 

Council employees had the opportunity for a limited viewing of the Beach Tech 3000 early in 2002 when we allowed Sno-Quip to use Maroubra Beach to demonstrate the machine to other councils from Sydney and country NSW. This demonstration was only intended to gauge the suitability of the Beach Tech 3000 operating techniques to improve the quality of beach cleaning and no detailed evaluation of its suitability to clean the Councils beaches was carried out due the limited time available for this demonstration.

 

The Beach Tech 3000 is a highly productive machine offering both screening and raking techniques or combinations of these techniques. Due to the ability to vary the operating techniques this machine can be operated in all weather conditions enabling the beach to cleaned when programmed and not only when weather conditions permit.

 

Utilising both raking and screening techniques, with a cleaning path of 2.4 metres and the processing rate up to 30,000 m² per hour the productivity and quality of beach cleaning should be noticeably higher than that of the current beach cleaner a Barber Surf Rake that only rakes the beach. 

 

Significant savings in beach cleaning costs can be obtained using the Beach Tech 3000 as it has an integrated skip with a capacity of 4.0 cubic metres. There would no longer be a need for a truck to work in conjunction with beach cleaner freeing up a truck and multi skilled worker.

 

The operator and Mechanical trades team leader have not had the opportunity to see the unit operate but have viewed a video of its operation.

 

From a maintenance point of view daily and weekly servicing is limited to greasing and washing down of the unit in addition to a visual inspection of the unit conducted before and after operation.

 

The life of tines on the raking drum is estimated to be between 300 and 500 hours. Council’s mechanical trades technicians can easily attend to replacement of tines. No major maintenance is required until the unit has operated for 600 hours.

 

The hydraulic system operated via a Power Take Off is a closed system with the risk of contamination substantially reduced, as there is no need to couple up to the tractors hydraulic system.

 

Operational Considerations

 

The current beach cleaner combination is approximately 8.2 metres long and the proposed replacement will be approximately 11.75 metres long. The increase in size of the beach cleaner tractor combination poses some questions about whether this unit can be effectively used due to the design of the present beach accesses and the width of some of Councils beaches. Most of the issues arising from the increase in size can be addressed by alterations to beach access and changes to current operating practises and procedures.

 

In general the increases in the size and weight of the beach cleaner and the resultant changes required to provide access and operate the unit in a safe manner can be addressed by but not limited to these measures.

·    Install a two channel CCTV system to enable the operator to view the leading edge and rotating drum assembly and the area immediately behind the beach cleaner whilst reversing.

·    A rotating lamp or strobe light be fitted to the beach cleaner if possible.

·    Operators will need to exercise caution whilst operating the beach cleaner in close proximity to steep edges that appear near the high tide line during summer.

·    Operators will need to adhere strictly to the routes laid down for travelling on the road network.

·    Provision of an appropriate communication device for the operator whilst working outside of core hours.

 

 

Clovelly Beach

 

The access to the beach currently being used would have to be upgraded to use the proposed combination, as the turns required to get to the beach are too tight. If the access were to be upgraded to operate the cleaner effectively on Clovelly the operator would have to employ a system of operation that would result in the machine being driven down the ramp and reversed to the water line and then operated as the combination was driven to the western extremity of the beach. This process would have to be repeated 16 times to clean the full area of the beach approximately 4,000 square metres.

 

To provide better access to the beach the vehicular access from Cliffbrook Parade would have to be improved by widening and modification at the beach end to improve the turning area for easier access and to prevent damage to the unit.

 

Coogee Beach

 

Access to Coogee Beach will also need to be upgraded due to the increase in length of the combination. To access the beach using the current ramp a tight turn has to be negotiated. The Case tractor, Barber Surf Rake combination as well as surfboat trailers have struck the sandstone wall on several occasions.

 

One option would be to access the beach from Arden Street. The no parking Zone at the vehicular access to the northern most point of Goldstein Reserve will have to be extended both north and south to allow the beach cleaning combination to enter the reserve and drive to the beach access point at the northern end of the beach. To drive onto the beach a section of sandstone wall to the north of the current beach access would have to be removed and the ramp modified or extended to enable the combination to swing onto the beach.

 

Widening of the opening in the sandstone wall may lead to increased volumes of sand being deposited onto the Beach Street plaza area in extreme weather conditions. One option for limiting the transfer of sand into the plaza area would be to extend the northern most planter box to the north to provide a more effective barrier to wind blown sand.

 

Maroubra Beach

 

The open layout of Maroubra beach poses no problems access to the beach being via the pavilion car park, the ramp to the southern end of the promenade. The beach is wide enough to permit the unit to turn in most if not all locations.

 

Malabar Beach

 

The access ramp to Malabar beach has been constructed of timber and over time the gross combination mass of the proposed units approximately 11 tonne is likely to lead to the ramp failing. Consideration should be given to constructing a new ramp in concrete.

 

The width of Malabar beach poses some operational issues that can be addressed by adopting a rigid operating procedure. The ends of the beach are not wide enough for the combination to be turned in a single pass. To clean the ends of the beach in most effective manner the operator would have to employ a similar technique to the one proposed for Clovelly.

 

Frenchmans Bay

 

The section of beach from the Boat Shed Café to the groyne can be cleaned using the proposed unit depending on tides. On a low tide there should be sufficient room to enable the operator to conduct a three-point turn and return to the southern end of the beach. To expand the opportunities for using the proposed beach cleaner in all tidal conditions on this section beach the northern most pedestrian path could be widened to accommodate the beach cleaner and the turning area at the groyne improved.

 

The area to the north of the groyne may be able be serviced by reversing the machine over the groyne to the northern end of the beach and operating the unit on the return trip to the groyne. To effectively clean this section of beach would take approximately 8 manoeuvres of this nature.

 

Yarra Bay

 

The area from the sailing club to the boat ramp can be accessed from the sailing club boat ramp. The ease of tuning on this section of the beach would be dependent on the tides and most likely the machine would have to be perform a three-point turn at the open drain which may be traversed if the right conditions exist.

 

If the open drain is not traversable the beach cleaner can access the beach via a steep ramp at the northwestern end. A 3 point turn is required to turn the machine on this end of the beach,

 

CONCLUSION:

 

After an evaluation which focused on the techniques and operating principles the selection panel was unanimous in opinion that the Beach Tech 3000 meet the essential criteria in the specification and would improve the quality of beach cleaning.

 

As we received only one conforming tender from Sno-Quip Pty Ltd offering a suitable unit with both screening and raking capability we should accept their tender.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council resolve to purchase the Kassbohrer Beach Tech 3000 tendered by Sno Quip Pty Ltd for the sum of $133,850 excluding GST.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Evaluation scoring guideline

Tender Evaluation - under separate cover 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 122/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

GREEN WASTE AND RECYCLING WASTE SITE

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3862

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 27 August 2002, Council resolved 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 15 Bumborah Point Road, Botany to be used for the purpose of a recycling facility.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 July 2002, Council resolved to agree to the terms of the Heads of Agreement for lease of the recycling site and to delegate authority to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Heads of Agreement.   The Heads of Agreement was executed on 6 August 2002.

 

Prior to Council’s consideration of the lease from Sydney Ports Corporation, Council had been evaluating an alternative site option located in a quarter part of Lot 2 (DP 528680) in McPherson Street, Banksmeadow.   This site is owned by Cunos and is adjacent to the Orica Chemical Plant.   Aerial photography and site examination indicated that the site had been used for the outdoor storage of chemicals.

 

ISSUES:

 

Comparison of sites

 

A comparison of the two sites is shown at Attachment 1.   While the economic evaluation shows a marginal benefit in acquisition versus lease, the principal issue is the site contamination.  A meeting was held with the Manager and staff of the EPA’s Contaminated Sites Unit on 23 September 2002.  The Manager of this Unit is personally in charge of Voluntary Agreement between Orica Australia Limited and the NSW EPA dated 21 May 2002 and expressed some concern that Council was considering the acquisition of any a portion of this site.

 

On the information provided by EPA, there is clear evidence that Council should not further consider the acquisition of the Banksmeadow site.

 

Budget allocation

 

The lease and development of the Bunnerong site and restitution of the former Yarra Bay site had not been included in the current budget estimates, as it could not have been foreseen at the time of the budget preparation that Sydney Ports Corporation (SPC) would have completed its purchase of Lot 103 from the former owners, Sydney Water.  The opportunity to secure a lease was confirmed after the preparation of the budget.

 

The restitution of the former Yarra Bay site will be subject to final assessment of the environmental condition of the former Yarra Bay landfill.  This would be best undertaken in the 2003/2004 budget context.  

 

The Heads of Agreement with Sydney Ports Corporation has a Rent Commencement Date of 1 May 2003.   SPC will allow Council to occupy the site prior to 1 May 2003 and recognises that Council will require a timeframe to complete its own statutory planning and development approval processes.  The Development Application process and site development works are critically timed to enable possession of the site and operations to commence on 1 May 2003.   The DA requirements include the preparation of the Development Application, Environmental Impact Statement and Project Management.

 

As the development is for a Council business operation, the preparation of the LEP change and the assessment of the DA would need to be done by external consultants at an estimated cost of $30,000.

 

Development works for the Bunnerong site are estimated at $700,000 including weighbridge facilities and these costs will be depreciated over the life of the facility.    Council will seek funds from other sources such as SSROC and Resource NSW to defray the total cost of developing the site.

 

In addition to the development cost, there will be the cost of security on the lease, lease payments, legal costs, outgoings and the cost of public consultation during the DA process.   These costs are estimated to total $452,000.   It is proposed that $1,152,000 be transferred from the Waste Reserve (comprising general, plant and recycling reserves) into an operating account to be established within the budget.    The use of these funds is consistent with the purpose of the Waste Reserve.

 

To ensure that the processing of green waste, crushing of concrete and marketing of the products collectively make an economic return to the Council, the gate charges and product price schedules will be reviewed at the mid financial year, so that charges can be adjusted and advised to clients in preparation for the next financial year.

 

Site remediation

 

On 21 August 2002, SPC notified Council of its intention to commence site remediation works in association with stormwater drainage works.    Site remediation works have been identified in the Site Audit Statement for the total Lot 103 site, which has been submitted to the EPA by SPC’s Independent Site Auditor. 

Pursuant to the Heads of Agreement, SPC will remediate the site prior to Council’s occupation of the site.  These works are expected to be complete by March 2003.  The remediation conditions stated in the Site Audit include the following:

 

·    Validation of any areas of exposed soil which will be readily accessible to site users to confirm the absence of asbestos fibres in surface soil.  This will require remediation of at least the former demolition area and cooling canal of the site where asbestos fibres have been found in surface soil during the investigation;

 

·    Remediation of the lead and copper contaminated fill in the southern end of the site, within the former coal stockpile area (outside the lease area);

 

·    Remediation of the hydrocarbon contaminated soil on the eastern side of the site in the southern corner of the former ash handling area: and

 

·    Further investigation and/or remediation of any potentially contaminated materials that are exposed during site development.

 

SPC has made an undertaking in the Heads of Agreement to remediate any contaminated soil that is disturbed as a result of site development works.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Bunnerong site will be a preferable site for the recycling operations, being within the Council area and available for use subject to development consent.  The timeframe for the Development Approval process is exacting and construction of the site facilities will need to commence as soon as possible following Development consent, in order that the site operations can commence on or before the Rent Commencement Date of 1 May 2003.   Budget allocation is required to enable development processes to commence.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

That Council:

 

1.         Note that the alternative site at Banksmeadow would have been an unsuitable acquisition on the grounds of the extreme state of site contamination and the additional costs of site works and remediation of the site that would impose delay in occupation and loss of revenue; and

 

2.         Agree to the transfer of $1,152,000 from the Waste Reserve into the operating budget, to meet outlay and site establishment costs at the Bunnerong site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Comparison of Bunnerong and  Banksmeadow sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

COMPARISON OF SITES

 

PARAMETER

BUNNERONG SITE

BANKSMEADOW SITE

Reference Lot

Port Botany Lot 103 Deposited Plan 805244

Banksmeadow Lot 2 Deposited Plan 528680

Reference Plan

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

Botany Local Environmental Plan 1995

Land Use

Port Botany 4B

Botany Industrial 4(a)

Planning Aspects

LEP Amendment 32 agreed for exhibition by Council 27 August 2002 to permit use of site zoned Port Botany 4B as a recycling facility.

Recycling facility falls within existing allowable uses.  Botany LEP Amendment 24 – Acid Sulphate Soils restricts use of site regarding impacts on groundwater and requires special assessment of development.   Site previously subject to Section 35 notification under former Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1995.

Valuation

$270 per square metre based on site free of contamination.

$325 per square metre based on site free of contamination.  Purchase value of the site is $9,750,000.

Site Contamination

There is minor hydrocarbon-contaminated soil in the proposed lease area and asbestos in the former cooling canal area that borders the site. 

Site is contaminated with Volatile and Semi-Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the soil, soil gas, shallow aquifer and deep aquifer.   The contamination plume covers the entire site.

Site Audit Statement

Previous site history re-examined by SPC’s Site Auditor G Nyland in Site Audit Statement dated 24 July 2002.   Site to be validated against conditions in Site Audit Statement and report by the Site Auditor to EPA NSW, prior to release for use.

Site has been reviewed by Woodward Clyde, now URS consultants.  A Site Audit Statement could not be finalised until EPA has reviewed investigation phase and proposed remediation works, which will be post December 2004. 

Site Remediation

SPC undertakes to remediate the site prior to occupancy and to further remediate as required during occupancy.   SPC notified Council on 21 August 2002 of intention to carry out remediation works from November 2002 to March 2003.  

The site is now subject to a Voluntary Agreement to Investigate and Remediate between Orica Australia Limited and the NSW EPA dated 21 May 2002, pursuant to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.   The investigation phase of the Agreement is due for completion by December 2004, by which time an ongoing program for remediation would be submitted to the EPA for approval.   Investigations include research work on emerging technologies for remediation.

Timings for remediation

Expected completion March 2003 to allow occupancy by May 2003.

Timings for remediation are unspecified and are contingent on EPA acceptance of investigation phase after December 2004.   DLWC requires restoration of the aquifer to drinking water quality standard within 15-20 years.

Liability for remediation

Rests with Sydney Ports Corporation as owner of the property.  

Currently rests with owner Cunos and Orica Australia, however liability passes to new owner on sale of the property.   As site poses significant risk of harm to human health and the environment, EPA advises that it would require the new owner to meet the obligations under the Voluntary Agreement.   EPA could not foresee why anyone would want to take over this liability for the “worst contaminated land in Australia”.

Costs of remediation

Borne by Sydney Ports Corporation.

Currently borne by Orica Australia Ltd.   The cost of remediating this portion of Lot 2 is conservatively estimated at well over $2.5 million, as it is difficult to estimate processes that may include disposal of matter by as-yet not approved thermal destruction processes.   

Economic Evaluation

$7,753,230 in Net Present Value, based on initial lease cost of $784,000 per annum and the following assumptions:

·    NPV Discount rate of 7%

·    CPI at 1.5% on lease charges

·    Outlay and site establishment costs of $760,000

·    Annual operating cost of $646,000

·    Annual revenue of $840,000.

$7,296,150 in Net Present Value, based on purchase value of $9,750,000 and the following assumptions:

·    NPV Discount rate of 7%

·    Botany Council rates at 1.1140%

·    Site remediation cost of $2,500,000

·    Outlay and site establishment costs of $1,560,000

·    Annual interest charges of $682,500

·    Annual operating cost of $646,000

·    Annual revenue of $840,000

This evaluation is based on an interest only repayment of the loan.  It does not take into account the delay in establishing the site that would occur due to site remediation, which could take several years to resolve and is dependent on EPA’s assessment of Orica’s Investigatory phase of the Voluntary Agreement.   Any delay in transfer from Yarra Bay impacts on the opportunity value of the Yarra Bay site as a public recreational area.  In addition, this evaluation does not take into any delays due to consent requirements for Acid Sulphate soils, imposed by Botany Council.  There are also higher site establishment costs due to the need to raise the level of the ground because of the water table.

Capacity to fund

Establishment of this site can be funded by an initial transfer of funds from the Waste Reserve.

Establishment of this site would require Council to enter into debt financing, contrary to Council’s policy of remaining debt-free.

Corporate Image

Leasing of this site and rehabilitation of the Yarra Bay site in the shorter term would enhance the Council’s corporate image.

Acquisition of this site, described by EPA as a “poisoned chalice” and entering into debt financing arrangement contrary to Council policy would create a poor corporate image, notwithstanding the intrinsic risks and potential delays would hold up the vacating of the Yarra Bay site.

Implementation

LEP and DA processes are required, concurrent with the remediation of the site, for target occupancy by May 2003.   Rehabilitation of the Yarra Bay site can be planned for the 2003/2004 financial year.

Acquisition and DA processes would take at least until April/May 2003, depending on the assessment requirements for Acid Sulphate soils.   Site occupancy would be delayed by the requirement to remediate the site, as this could not be done in-situ with site operations due to the hazardous nature of the contaminants.

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 123/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 5/02 REPLACEMENT OF GARBAGE COMPACTORS

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4565

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Open tenders were called for the Manufacture, Supply and Commissioning of five 19 Cubic Metre Rear Loading Compactors to be fitted to International Acco 2350G 6 x 4 cab chassis. The cab chassis units were purchased separately under State Government Contract.

 

The five compactor units are replacing units currently providing general cleanup, metal collection and green waste services.

 

 

Background

 

Domestic Waste services currently being carried out are:

 

·    General Clean up utilising 2 only Garwood 900 19 cubic metre rear loading compaction units (purchased in the late 1970’s) mounted on International Acco  8 x 4 cab chassis (purchased in 1993) with an average payload of 6 tonne;

·    Metal recycling utilising 1 only 8 tonne tipper body with a tailgate lifting mechanism mounted on a 4 x 2 International cab chassis purchased in 1989 and;

·    Green waste collection utilising 2 only Garpac 14 Cubic metre rear loading compaction units (purchased in 1995).

 

Changes in the operating systems resulting in these vehicles being used for operations outside their original design specifications have compromised the reliability of the trucks and increased breakdowns.

 

Replacement of these vehicles also creates the opportunity for Council to address some of the OH&S issues that have been identified under the current operating systems.

 

 

Funding

 

The net cost of replacement is to be funded from the Domestic Waste Plant Reserve.

 

 

Selection panel

 

The  selection panel for evaluation of the tenders was

·    Plant and Equipment Officer

·    Co-ordinator – West Area

·    Co-ordinator – Waste Services

·    Co-ordinator – Coastal Area

·    Team Leader – Mechanical Trades

 

Operators in the waste operations area provided input into the specification, viewed the tendered units and were invited to comment on suitability and safety issues.

 

 

Conforming tenders

 

Five conforming tenders from four suppliers were received.

 

Tenderer

Model

Tendered price exc GST per unit – (excludes options)

 

Binski Services

Heil PT1000

$99,207

Binski Services

Heil 4000

$95,000

MacDonald Johnston

JP5

$87,970

Garwood International

Maxipact 19

$99,500

Compaction Systems

Autopak

$92,000

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Clean Up Trucks

 

The two clean up trucks (Garwood 900 19 cubic metre compaction units) purchased in the late 1970’s and have an average payload of 6 tonne. By replacing the “Cleanup” trucks with two 19 cubic metre compactors it is estimated that the capacity of the vehicle will increase to approximately 8 tonne.

 

The advantages of changing to a 6 x 4 cab chassis for the clean up collections are:

·    lower registration charges

·    15% reduction in tyre usage

·    reduced maintenance costs

·    improved access to collection area smaller and more manoeuvrable

·    reduction in trips to the transfer station by approximately 20%

·    Decreased road damage due to lower vehicle mass.

 

Green Waste Trucks

 

At present the green waste collection is carried out using two 14 cubic metre compactors mounted on 4x2 cab chassis with a legal payload of approximately 4.5 tonne.

 

The advantages of changing to 19 cubic metre compactors mounted on 6 x 4 cab chassis for green waste collections are:

·    capacity can be increased to 8.5 tonne  approximately 90% over existing .

·    trips to the transfer station reduced by 30%  saving 1 hour per day.

·    Diesel fuel grant of $0.18510 per litre approximately $4,500 per year per vehicle.

 

Metal Recycling Truck

 

The current metal recycling truck is a tipper with a tailgate lifter that has limited carrying capacity due to the loads comprising large volume items.

 

There are several OH&S issues created by the current method of collection:

·    Manual handling – heavy items are frequently lifted onto the truck by operators.

·    Trip and slip - operator have to climb into the back of the truck to position the load.

·    Operators ride on the back of the truck with unsecured loads.

 

The advantages of replacing this truck with a 19 cubic metre compactor mounted on a 6 x 4 cab chassis are:

·    Manual handing risks reduced by using a bin lifter with adjustable forks to load items

·    Trip and slip risks reduced by no longer having to climb into the truck and reposition the load

·    Operators are no longer in a position to come into contact with the load once it has been  swept from the load hopper into the compactor.

 

Uniformity

 

There are a number of advantages to be gained by having standardised compactors and operating systems

·    Operators can readily be transferred from one operation to another with out having to relearn the operating systems

·    Maintenance staff only have to deal with one system

·    Trucks can be readily redeployed to other operations to cover equipment shortfalls created by breakdowns and regular maintenance.

 

Issues to be addressed by Compactor Replacements

 

The compactor and supplier selected must address the following points:

·    Suitable for heavy hard garbage

·    Improve manoeuvrability over current clean up vehicles

·    Improved productivity

·    Improved safety

·    Environmental concerns relating to spillage of liquids and other materials

 

OH&S Issues

 

The OH&S issues being addressed in conjunction with the purchase of the waste compactors are:

·    Manual handling – Forks to reduce the amount of lifting into the truck

·    Manual handling – bulk containers reduced from 1.5 m³ to a maximum of .66 m³.

·    Cable failure – winches no longer required

·    Visibility- Lights have been hard wired to remain on whilst the vehicle is in operation

·    Maintenance – lube points where possible to be set up for remote lubrication limited the need to climb onto the truck

 

Compactor Options

 

Submissions for supply of compactor bodies were received from

 

MacDonald Johnston

 

This company has be manufacturing and servicing garbage compactors and street sweepers in Australia for over 25 years and compactors manufactured by them are currently being operated by Collex, other councils and contractors in Sydney.

 

The JP5 Hard Garbage specification compactor tendered by Macdonald Johnston is a well constructed unit suitable for use in Council’s operation. However we have a few concerns over the construction of the unit and the maintenance issues e.g. ejector panel has to be removed before replacing the wear pads and the guides for the panel appear to be susceptible to damage from heavy objects.

 

The design of the bin lifting mechanism limits the length of material that can be placed into the load hopper due to the lift cylinders being mounted vertically at the rear extremity of the load hopper.

 

Macdonald Johnston have a strong support base in Sydney with a well equipped maintenance facility at Wetherill Park and mobile units attending to field service and repairs.

 

Binski Pty Ltd

 

Binski tendered the Heil 4000 and LT1000 compaction units. The tailgate/load hopper of  these units are imported from Heil in the US and the bodies are manufactured at Granville. The units are currently be used by Sutherland Council and several other councils in Sydney.

 

These two units are essentially the same utilising the identical packing mechanism mechanical components with the main difference being the size of the load hopper and the shape of the body.

 

The design of the packer mechanism is such that the cylinders packing the load are located inside the load hopper and more difficult to service. The selection panel was concerned about the guides that permit the packer mechanism slide on the load hopper as the allowed considerable free movement of the panel.

 

Binski offers field service and Council has used them frequently to carry out repairs on other manufacturers units that do not have facilities in Sydney.

 

Compaction Systems

 

The Compaction Systems units offered are currently being used by Council in Trade Waste operations. Our experiences with these units indicate that the extra load placed on the mechanism will result in increased wear to the load hopper and packer mechanism. The packer mechanism has all cylinders in the load hopper area and maintenance to the pack cylinders is difficult and mechanics have to enter the load hopper for maintenance.

 

The bin lifter mechanism has not been as reliable as we would like with bin releasing at critical times posing an unacceptable risk to operators. Compaction systems have stated that they have a new design for the bin lifter but it has not been tested yet.

 

Compaction Systems have a limited presence in Sydney, one maintenance person and an arrangement with another firm based at Riverstone to carry out maintenance and repairs.

 

Garwood Equipment Services

 

The Maxipact 19 compactor tendered by Garwood Equipment Services is a heavy duty design built for the collection of hard garbage.

 

The tailgate of the unit is constructed from high tensile bisalloy steel and the body is also  to be constructed from bisalloy. The extensive use of bisalloy increases the resistance to friction and deformation caused by waste packing operations.

 

The bin lifter is a robust construction and appeared to handle the job adequately as shown  by the condition of the two year old units we viewed as part of the selection process.

 

Garwood have a manufacturing and maintenance facility at Wetherill Park. All manufacturing operations are carried out on site with electronics valves and cylinders being supplied by specialist manufacturers. Field service is available with 3 vehicles set up for hydraulic, 1 for mechanical and 1 for electrical repairs.

 

The 8 cubic metre compactor purchased from Garwood in 2001 for recycling of cardboard and paper has been reliable and ideally suited to the tasks it was purchased to perform.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All of the compactors tended have merit but the panel felt the compactor most suited to the heavy work load of the clean up and green waste service is the Garwood Maxipact.

 

The panel selected the Garwood Maxipact for the following reasons:

·    Extensive use of Bisalloy in the construction of the unit.

·    Ease of maintenance

·    Simple design and operation of the bin lifter

·    Use of innovative hydraulic system that reduces the number of valves required

·    Manufacturing and repair facilities in Sydney

 

The compactor should be fitted with the following options to enhance performance and safety

·    Colour rear view camera

·    Adjustable forks

·    Shovel and broom racks

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council purchase five Garwood Maxipact garbage compactor units for a total price of $523,090 excluding GST

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Evaluation scoring guidelines

Evaluation scores

Cost v Need matrix - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT & EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 124/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AT MALABAR POOL

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2703

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council, at its meeting of Tuesday 26th March 2002, resolved that:

 

a)“Council write to the NSW Fire Brigade, Hazmat and relevant Council Officers, expressing their appreciation in the effective and efficient clean up, 

b) A report be prepared outlining further measures to secure the pool, including options for increased lighting and other surveillance measures”.

c) Council endorse the offer of a $2000 reward for information that would lead to a successful prosecution of person/s responsible for this latest act of vandalism.”

 

The purpose of this report is to update relevant parties on the status of these resolutions and to report on options for improved security at the site.

 

ISSUES:

 

On the night of 6th March 2002, an unfortunate and deliberate act of environmental vandalism occurred in which 12 tins, containing a mixture of paint and oil, were illegally dumped into the ocean pool at Malabar.

 

Council staff, the EPA, NSW Fire Brigade Service and Hazmat were involved in clean up operations, with Council’s costs of $6,121.50 recovered through the EPA’s Environmental Trust by way of a cheque received on 1st August 2002.

 

Security Options

 

Access to Malabar Pool is unrestricted at all times, however, in light of recent circumstances, Council must now take action to minimise the potential for similar incidents in the future.

 

As in most cases, there is a greater chance of vandalism during the night than other times, as offenders are less likely to be detected.

 

Additional lighting is considered to be the most effective method of detection at this location, and would involve the installation of a pole and 2-3 floodlights to illuminate part of the carpark area and access paths. Lighting of the actual pool is not advisable as it would give an incorrect impression that the facility is supervised.

 

The cost to supply and install a pole and floodlights is in the order of $8000, with power to be sourced from the existing power box. The lights would operate on a daylight switch that is automatically activated at dusk and turned off at dawn.

 

The visual impact of a new pole and the likelihood of light intrusion into neighbouring properties should also be considered. Such issues could be addressed during the design and material selection stage, and upon installation, would be mounted in such a way as to minimise impact on adjacent properties.

 

In conjunction with additional lighting, signage advising of the Appropriate Regulatory Authority (ARA), to be contacted in such instances eg EPA, Council, NSW Fire Brigade, Hazmat, should be provided at key points around the site to enable efficient responses to suspected or actual events.

 

The provision of a boom gate or slip rail at the entry/exit of the carpark would prevent vehicle access only, and would not necessarily ensure a reduction in vandalism at the pool. This is evidenced by the most recent offender who was undeterred by the fact that the containers had to be manually carried down a number of steps and ramps leading to the pool, a distance of approximately 40 metres.

 

An access gate is considered labour intensive, as it would need to be opened and locked on a daily basis, including weekends, with opening and closing times likely to cause an inconvenience to users. An increase of parked cars in Bay Parade and Howe Street could also be expected at such times.

 

Due to the low number of people that use the carpark at night and the sporadic nature of vandalism at the site, the use of surveillance cameras is not considered to be the most effective option due to the high costs involved and the requirement for monitoring.

 

Letters have been sent to the EPA, NSW Fire Brigade and relevant Council staff, expressing Council’s appreciation for their assistance with the clean up operation in March this year.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Illumination of the carpark and access paths is the preferred option for detecting and preventing possible or actual offenders, with consideration to be given to the installation of an access gate at a later date if lighting proves ineffectual.

 

The installation of signage advising of the Appropriate Regulatory Authority to be contacted upon discovery of environmental vandalism will ensure quick response times to all reported incidents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That maintenance funds within the existing budget be allocated -

 

1.   for the installation of power pole and floodlights to illuminate the carpark and access paths only, and

 

2.   signage advising of the Appropriate Regulatory Authority to be contacted upon the discovery of environmental vandalism be provided at key locations around the site to ensure quick response times and minimal effect on the environment.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

DAVID MEREDITH

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 125/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Energy Australia's "Pure Energy" Program

 

 

DATE:

16 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1242

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24 April 2001 resolved that:

 

"(a)      a report be brought before a Council meeting evaluating the benefits to Council should it exercise it's consumer responsibility to choose socially appropriate products by signing up for Energy Australia Pure Energy  programme; and

 

(b)        In addition, the report's author will request advice on Newcastle Council initiatives in this field by contacting its Council's Australian Municipal Energy Information Facility."

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         RENEWABLE ENERGY IN BRIEF

 

NSW Councils are increasingly signing up to renewable energy programmes to set an example for the wider community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are used to generate electricity.  The burning of fossil fuels generates very large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

 

Green Power is electricity generated from clean renewable sources such as the sun, wind, water and organic matter.  It is a clean energy alternative providing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  In NSW, approximately 30 Councils, including Randwick, have already asked their energy suppliers to source all or part of their electricity requirements from clean renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels such as coal, through Green Power.

 

By supporting renewable energy, Councils are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in some cases are directly supporting regional development and employment when renewable energy projects such as wind farms are built in their region.  Councils who have elected to use government accredited renewable energy are using Green Power.

 

Any energy supplier who offers a renewable energy product that has met the stringent environmental requirements of the National Green Power Association Steering Group (the joint effort of NSW, Qld, Vic, ACT and SA Sustainable Energy State Government Authorities) is eligible for Green Power accreditation.  Approved Green Power energy suppliers purchase the equivalent of all or a percentage of a Council's electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, mini hydro or biomass.

 

The usage of accredited Green Power and renewable energy programmes delivered through energy suppliers may also entitle the user to display the accredited “Green Power” logo (refer below) on marketing material and signage, as desired. Entitlement to utilise the logo is based upon renewable energy usage as a proportion of total energy usage, as set out in the table below. It is anticipated that usage of the “Green Power” logo will firstly alert the wider community to the existence of renewable energy products and secondly encourage other businesses and individuals to utilise Green Power in their home/place or work.

 

Annual Electricity Use

Minimum Green Power Level -
 Energy Based Schemes

>40 GWh/annum

2.5% of energy purchased (in kWh)

>4 GWh/annum

10% of energy purchased (in kWh)

>750 MWh/annum

25% of energy purchased (in kWh)

>160 MWh/annum

50% of energy purchased (in kWh)

<160 MWh/annum and domestics

75% of energy purchased (in kWh)

1 GWh = 1 Gigawatt-hour = 1,000,000 kWh

1 MWh = 1 Megawatt-hour = 1,000 kWh

Courtesy: http://www.greenpower.com.au/logousage.shtml

 

Green Power

 

 

In this regard, the Local Government Association Conference recently resolved that the Association "…urge all Councils to switch to energy efficient power sources and encourage ratepayers to switch to energy efficient power through programmes such as SEDA Energy Efficient Homes". 

 

 

2.         ENERGY AUSTRALIA'S PURE ENERGY PROGRAMME

 

Council currently sources the energy requirements for its assets from Energy Australia. As part of its commitment to the promotion and usage of sustainable and renewable sources of energy, Energy Australia developed the PureEnergy Programme. This programme was launched in 1996 and accredited by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) in 1997 and is offered to approximately 1,180,000 residential customers.  Under PureEnergy, domestic and small business customers can purchase either 50% or 100% of their electricity (excluding off peak hot water) from Green Power sources whilst contestable business customers can select any percentage. The sources from which renewable energy can be purchased under Energy Australia’s PureEnergy programme are:

 

·          solar (0.7%);

·          wind (0.4%);

·          hydro (16.0%); and

·          biomass generators (82.9%).

 

Randwick City Council currently purchases approximately 6% of its energy bill for the administration building and the Town Hall from renewable sources under the PureEnergy programme. Based on recent figures, this purchase increases Council’s expenditure on energy for these assets by 3.5% each month. If Council were to purchase 100% of this energy from the PureEnergy programme the monthly cost for energy could be estimated to rise between 50% and 60%.

 

Given the volatile nature of the energy market, the energy rates at which each bill is calculated can be expected to rise and fall in response to demand and supply unless a contract is entered into with Energy Australia or another energy provider for a given period of time for the purchase of Green Power. Should Council enter into a formal arrangement with a Green Power provider, the added cost to Council for using renewable energy may be reduced.

 

At time of writing, the Energy Australia PureEnergy programme has been suspended due to overwhelming demand. Energy Australia has been unable to receive new customers, or increase the percentages of Green Power utilised by existing customers, since 19 February 2002, as the level of demand for Green Power has exceeded the supply available to Energy Australia. Energy Australia is currently in the process of determining new ways to increase it’s ability to provide PureEnergy service to new and increasing customers.

 

It is important to note that due the deregulation of the energy industry in January 2002 the purchase of energy for Council’s street lighting network is currently being determined in conjunction with recommendations of the Southern Sydney Region Organisation of Councils (SSROC). Council is currently considering the SSROC recommendation of entering into a formal contract for the supply of street lighting energy with NSW Supply and Energy Australia. Due to their inability to currently extend the PureEnergy programme to new customers, Energy Australia were unable to tender a price for the purchase Green Power for street lighting purposes under the SSROC contract. Should Council enter into an agreement for the purchase of street lighting energy from Energy Australia, the purchase of Green Power for this purpose will be able to be reviewed upon recommencement of the PureEnergy programme.

 

 

3.         INTEGRAL ENERGY'S COMMUNITY GREEN POWER PROGRAMME

 

Integral Energy's Community Green Power Programme was accredited in 1997 and is available to large contestable business customers.  These customers negotiate an electricity price with Integral Energy to have a percentage of their electricity sourced from Green Power generators.  This programme is similar to Energy Australia's PureEnergy Programme.

 

Integral Energy launched a Green Power tariff option in 1999.

 

4.         NEWCASTLE COUNCIL INITIATIVES - AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL ENERGY IMPROVEMENT FACILITY

 

The Australian Municipal Energy Improvement Facility is a business unit of Newcastle City Council that has been established to prepare Newcastle and the Hunter Region for its future greenhouse action technology and to provide Australian Councils with Local Government based greenhouse action knowledge interchange.

 

AMEIF works with Local Government, the residential and commercial sectors to deliver results that improve energy efficiency, therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering energy costs and creating new jobs.

 

From a local government perspective, it is easier to find reductions in energy costs than to find additional income.  Newcastle City Council's ongoing “Green Energy Project” has reduced its overall electricity costs from $997,396 in 1995 to $507,015 in 2000/2001. These savings have come about by taking a conscientious approach to energy usage together with a reinvestment of the achieved financial savings to provide funding for future projects.

Projects undertaken within the “Green Energy Project” include:

·          office lighting retrofits,

·          installation of lighting control systems,

·          upgrading electric motors,

·          installing power factor correction equipment,

·          reducing running time of electric appliances

 

The results of the “Green Energy Project” shows that there is financial savings in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This project is a vehicle that greatly helps the Council deliver one of its aims of making a sustainable future for Newcastle City.

 

Similar to the experiences of Newcastle City Council, Randwick has highlighted areas of energy inefficiency through it’s annual ESD Audit and as such has produced savings in energy usage and expenditure through the installation of timer switches and sensor lights in the Administration Building (refer Section 6 below).

5.         SEDA ENERGY SMART HOMES PROGRAMME

 

Randwick City Council has already implemented part of the Energy Smart Homes programme run by SEDA to encourage the implementation of energy efficient practices and a reduction in greenhouse gases.  Council has adopted the passive solar design of building envelope (minimum 3.5 star greenhouse score) and sustainable design and layout for residential subdivisions (eg Bundock Street).  This requirement is included within Council’s Development Control Plans for “Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies” and “Multi-Unit Housing”.

 

However, Council should also confirm its support for the implementation of the Model Energy Smart Homes Policy as developed by SEDA including the promotion of the installation of efficient hot water systems and appliances (minimum 3.5 star greenhouse score) into new dwellings. SEDA offers a $500 -$700 discount on selected electric or gas boosted solar or heat pump hot water systems to residents situated Councils who have adopted the full requirements of the Model Energy Smart Homes Policy. As stated below, these greenhouse friendly hot water systems are a requirement of the Energy Smart Homes Policy.

 

The primary requirements of the SEDA Model Energy Smart Homes Policy are as follows:

·      Minimum House Energy Rating (using NatHERs or equivalent) for the building envelope (as implemented in the abovementioned Randwick City Council DCP).

·      Greenhouse efficient hot water system (gas, solar, heat pump).

·      Low greenhouse emission electric clothes dryers (in multi-unit developments).

·      Development Applications for multi-unit development must be accompanied by an Energy Performance Statement (EPS), which evaluates how well the proposed development meets a variety of energy efficiency criteria (including those above).

 

Added to these, further design criteria includes:

 

·      Designing dwellings to maximise natural light to living spaces, and installing energy efficient lamps and fittings.

·      Allowing plenty of sunshine for outdoor clothes drying, installing an internal clothes drying space if external conditions don't permit outdoor drying, or installing energy efficient clothes dryers in multi-unit developments.

·      Installing top star rated energy efficient appliances that minimise greenhouse gas generation.

·      Saving water with AAA-rated showerheads, dual flush toilets and tap aerators.

·      Installing efficient heating and cooling systems that are zoned to heat/cool individual areas of the home.

 

6.         RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL'S ESD AUDIT

 

Randwick City Council was part of an SSROC Environmental Management Group ESD committee that developed the ESD Guidelines for Decision Makers in 2000.  The ESD Guidelines subsequently won a Gold Award for Management Excellence at the annual SSROC Environment Awards in 2000.   The guidelines contain two volumes.  Volume 1 is an introduction to ESD principles for decision makers and volume 2 is an ESD Audit.  

 

The ESD Guidelines for Decision Makers may be used in a number of different ways by Council.  Some suggestions for use include:

 

·          as a checklist for Council to assess whether they have adequate measures in place to protect the environment;

 

·          to give an objective snapshot of the sustainability of Council/business operations, enabling Council to move towards addressing their 'least sustainable' areas;

 

·          as a reference point in LEPs to give legal status to decisions made according to ESD principles;

 

·          allow developers and builders to gain a greater understanding of ESD principles, thus enabling their incorporation at the design phase;

 

·          assist Council decision makers to incorporate the principles of ESD in management of their respective areas; and

 

·          assist Councillors to know their responsibilities as they relate to ESD.

 

Randwick City Council was the first Council to implement the ESD Audit contained in volume 2 of the guidelines in 2000.  Each key manager in Council was briefly interviewed and answered a few questions about their section's operations.  An overall score was given to determine whether they were operating in an ecologically sustainable manner.   The ESD Audit has highlighted and will continue to highlight areas across Council's entire operations that can be improved with regard to energy efficiency. As previously mentioned Council has already installed timer switch and sensor lights in the Administration Building, which save both energy and money.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Councils using Energy Australia's Pure Energy or Integral Energy's Green Power programmes are realising both environmental and community relation benefits.  Using Pure Energy or Green Power programmes are relatively easy methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and Council can then use the Pure Energy or Green Power logo to promote their environmental and social commitment to the wider community of Randwick City.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report on renewable energy be noted;

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

 

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 126/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MALABAR HEADLAND

 

 

DATE:

17 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0976  98/S/1706 98/S/0975  

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 26th February 2002 Council resolved:

 

“That:

 

a)         Council resubmit its F.O.I. application to the Commonwealth Government requesting any documents associated with remediation or contamination studies that have been conducted in the last five (5) years with respect to the Malabar Headland and the likely costs of such remediation; and

b)         In relation to the specific wording which will be the subject of the revised F.O.I. application, the three (3) South Ward Councillors be provided with the draft wording for their comments prior to the formal re-lodgement of the application by Council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

In relation to part (b) of Council’s resolution a draft letter was forwarded to the Ward Councillors on 7th March 2002 for comment.  Following agreement to the wording the F.O.I application was again activated.

 

By letter dated 9th April, 2002, the Department of Finance and Administration advised that the estimated cost of  dealing with the application would be $10,785.  This is the same estimate as for previously amended F.O.I. application submitted by Council.

 

At about the same time Council became aware that correspondence was being conducted between the NSW EPA and the Department in relation to the preparation of a Site Management Plan for the site.  A copy of correspondence from the EPA is attached for information.

 

In view of these developments, the F.O.I. application and estimate was discussed with the Mayor and it was agreed that Council should wait and see if there were further developments arising out of the EPA’s actions.

 

Since that time there has been a further development relating to the site, namely the release of the Draft Plan of Management prepared by the Friends of Malabar Headland.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In view of the high estimated cost of proceeding with the amended F.O.I. application together with other developments in relation to Malabar Headland it is considered appropriate for Council to review it’s decision to proceed with the formal application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council re-consider its previous decision in relation to the submission of an F.O.I application in relation to Malabar Headland.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Environment Protection Authority letter  

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 36/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ANTI-CORRUPTION) ACT, 2002.

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1164

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Director General of the Department of Local Government recently wrote to Council advising that part of the New South Wales Government’s response to investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption into a metropolitan Council was the passing by Parliament of the Local Government Amendment (Anti-Corruption) Act, 2002 which had effect from 17 June, 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department also forwarded individually addressed letters to each Councillor on this issue from the Minister for Local Government.

 

Whilst it is recognised by the Government that the vast majority of Councillors act properly and for the benefit of their local communities, the amendments to the Act were necessary to protect the public standing of individual Councils and the local government sector as a whole and to ensure the proper exercise of Council functions without corruption.

 

There are several new measures contained in the amendments to the Local Government Act, 1993 which now apply to Councils, Councillors and Council staff. These are:

 

(a)        Dismissal of all Councillors of a Council

 

Section 255 of the Local Government Act has been amended to authorise the removal of all the members of a Council, without holding a public inquiry, if the ICAC has recommended in an interim or final report of an ICAC investigation that consideration be given to their removal because of systemic corruption within the Council.

 

(b)        Suspension of a Councillor

 

New Section 440C enables the Minister to suspend a Councillor from Civic Office, without notice or inquiry, if:

 

i.          the ICAC has made a recommendation that consideration be given to the suspension of the Councillor from Civic Office with a view to his or her dismissal for “serious corrupt conduct”; or

ii.          criminal proceedings are instituted against the Councillor for “serious corrupt conduct”; or

iii.         the Councillor makes an admission of “serious corrupt conduct”.

 

“Serious corrupt conduct” is defined in new Section 440A as “corrupt conduct” under the ICAC Act, in connection with official duties, that may constitute a serious indictable offence (an offence that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years or more).

 

A suspension may be removed by the Minister at any time and is removed if the person is not dismissed from Civic Office, or criminal proceedings in connection with the corrupt conduct are not instituted within 6 months of the suspension, or if criminal proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed.

 

(c)        Dismissal of a Councillor

 

New Section 440B enables a Councillor to be dismissed from Civic Office for a period up to 5 years if the ICAC has recommended in a report that consideration be given to the suspension of the person from Civic Office  with a view to his or her dismissal for “serious corrupt conduct”.

 

The dismissal power is contingent on a Councillor being suspended from office under new Section 440C, the Councillor being given an opportunity to show cause why he or she should not be dismissed, and the Minister for Local Government advising the Governor that the dismissal is necessary in order to protect the public standing of the Council concerned and the proper exercise of its functions.

 

(d)        Suspension of Staff

 

New Section 440D allows the General Manager of a Council to suspend a member of staff from duty, without pay, on similar grounds to those on which a Councillor may be suspended under Section 440C.

 

The Minister is authorised to exercise the power in the case of the General Manager’s conduct or if the General Manager fails to act without reasonable cause. A General Manager who does not act to suspend a member of Council staff from duty within a reasonable period is hereby requested to provide his or her reasons for not taking suspension action to the Minister and the ICAC.

 

A suspension may be removed by the General Manager at any time and is removed if disciplinary or criminal proceedings in connection with the corrupt conduct are not instituted within 6 months of the suspension, or if the proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to the seriousness of the amendments to the Local Government Act, in respect to anti-corruption measures, the Department of Local Government specifically requested that this issue be the subject of a report to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the contents of the Director Governance, Management and Information Services’ Report No. 36/2002, be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 37/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SSROC TENDER FOR STATIONERY

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4819

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) has called tenders for the supply of Stationery, Laser Toner Cartridges and Replacement Office Furniture for a three year period for the 11 member councils, the SSROC Executive Office and Burwood Council. Tenders closed on 3 September 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

A panel, consisting of staff from South Sydney, Waverley and Randwick councils and a representative from SSROC, evaluated the tender proposals and recommended:

 

“SMG recommend to member councils, SSROC Executive Office and Burwood Council that they accept the tender submitted by Complete Office Supplies for a period of three years commencing 1 November 2002.”

 

SMG subsequently endorsed the recommendation.

 

 Council’s Purchasing and Contracts Coordinator led the tender panel throughout the tender process and wrote a report to participating councils whilst observing the Local Government Tendering Regulation 1999.

 

Copy of the report and the tender panel’s evaluation, scores and cost evaluation are attached for the Council’s consideration.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The recommendation of the SSROC SMG selection panel is supported. Complete Office Supplies have submitted the best offer to SSROC and Randwick City Council.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the tender from Complete Office Supplies for the supply of Stationery, Laser Toner Cartridges and Furniture for a period of three years commencing the 1 November 2002 be accepted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  SSROC report to participating Councils dated 26 September 2002

2.  Tender Scores and Weighting - Under Separate Cover

3.  Cost Evaluation - Under Separate Cover  

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

Tender for Supply of Stationery, Laser Toner

Cartridges and Office Furniture

 

Report to participating Councils

26 September 2002

 

 

1.         Introduction

 

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) currently has an agreement in place for the supply of stationery and laser toner cartridges that expires on 31 October 2002.

 

As part of its annual works program, the SSROC Supply Management Group (SMG) invited tenders / quotations for the supply and delivery of stationery, laser toner cartridges and office furniture for a period of three years for the 11 SSROC member councils, the SSROC Executive Office and Burwood Council.

 

The purpose of this tender is to select a supplier who can provide single source supply for stationery, laser toner cartridges and replacement office furniture.

 

The expenditure for stationery, laser toner cartridges and office furniture is approximately $600,000 annually.

 

2.         Tender

 

SSROC appointed a tender panel comprising representatives from a range of participating councils:

 

.     David Jex  -        Purchasing Manager, Waverley Council,

.     Toni Platt  -        Supply Supervisor, South Sydney City Council,

.          Don Mann  -      Purchasing & Supply Coordinator, Randwick City

                                      Council,              

.     Juanita Higgs  - Regional Projects Manager, SSROC (Environment Only)         

 

The tender panel produced a tender document, complete with specifications, and advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 August 2002.  The tender documents were made available from Waverley Council free of charge, 22 sets were either picked up or posted out to various companies.

 

3          TENDER CLOSE AND EVALUATION.

 

3.1             Tenders closed at Waverley Council at 10.00 am Tuesday 3 September 2002.

 

3.2             Weighting and Selection Criteria

 

The panel met one hour before tender close to discuss and agree on the weighting for of the criteria.

 

The agreed weightings were:

 

Criteria                                                                                     Weightings

 

Proven track record                                                                              15%

Competitive pricing and price basis                                                       15%

Ability and capacity to service the contract                                            10%

Delivery and performance standards                                                      10%

Catalogue and information systems                                                        5%

Compliance to occupational, health and safety                           5%

Electronic trading capabilities                                                                10%

Product assurance                                                                                5%

Reporting                                                                                             5%

Product availability                                                                                10%

Environmental considerations                                                                10%

 

The tender panel agreed on a series of questions and bands to ensure objective justification for arriving at the score. A copy of the tender panel’s evaluation and scores are at Attachment 1.

 

4.         TENDER SUBMISSION    

 

Summary of Tender Submission

 

Submissions received with final assessment score:

 

Number

Company

Total Score

1

Pacific Fine Furniture

Not assessed

2

Universal Office and Computer Supplies

574

3

Office Logics

700

4

Boise Cascade

638

5

Corporate Express

803

6

Complete Office Supplies

861

                                   

 

 

Pacific Fine Furniture                       

Their proposal was non-conforming as it only included furniture, therefore their submission was not assessed.

 

Universal Office and Computer Supplies

An Australian owned company formed in 1996 and situated at West Ryde. Currently maintains smaller contracts without multi sites. Pricing was the second most expensive in stationery and toner laser cartridges and they did not supply pricing for furniture. The rebate offered was very good.

 

Office Logics

An Australian owned company based at Frenchs Forest. The list of companies that they nominated as having current contracts with is either for Cabinet Fill or Laser Toner Cartridges. Of the three references supplied only one had contact details, this referee did state that they were doing a good job but were only supplying laser toner cartridges. They scored below average with both Ability and Capacity to Service the Contract and Delivery and Performance standards. Their pricing was best for laser toner cartridges, second best for stationery, they did not provide prices for furniture and they scored lowest for rebate.

 

Boise Cascade

Did not return the Environmental Questionnaire and were the most expensive for both stationery and laser toner cartridges.

 

Corporate Express

Scored the second highest overall, very capable in all areas of selection criteria. Was the third most expensive in both stationery and laser toner cartridges and scored equal last with the rebate.

 

Complete Office Supplies

Achieved the highest score overall, offered the lowest prices for stationery (4% less than DPWS contract); the second lowest price for laser toner cartridges; the only company to provide pricing for furniture; provided a structured price for the remainder of the catalogue and scored third with the rebate offer. 

 

Currently holds the contract with Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and SSROC for stationery and laser toner cartridges.

 

Has offered an additional 1% rebate for any council that places 90% of their orders through COSNET.

 

A penalty clause is to be inserted in the contract to ensure that 95% next day delivery of stationery is achieved.  If the monthly rate falls below that figure for any council a half percent rebate for that council’s monthly total spend for stationery will be included in the annual rebate to SSROC.

 

Conclusion

Evaluation of Tenderers against the specified evaluation criteria indicates that Complete Office Supplies have submitted the most superior tender representing the best value to councils.

 

Complete Office Supplies has also maintained the contract with SSROC for a period of seven years where they have achieved a high level of service.

 

Recommendation:

 

SMG recommend to member councils, SSROC Executive Office and Burwood Council that they accept the tender submitted by Complete Office Supplies for a period of three years commencing 1 November 2002.

 

David Jex                     Waverley Council

Toni Platt                      South Sydney City Council

Don Mann                    Randwick City Council

Juanita Higgs                SSROC

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 73/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Section 96 'B' Modification to Development Consent No D/0407/2000 at 1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.

 

 

DATE:

12 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D0407/2000 Part4

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT      

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as the original application was determined by Council. The approved development comprises a three-storey commercial/retail and residential development comprising a northern building fronting Beauchamp Road and a Southern building fronting Anzac Parade, both containing 52 dwelling units and ground floor shops. The approved development is almost fully constructed and the subject Section 96 application seeks approval retrospectively for changes that have been incorporated into the constructed building.

 

The application seeks approval for internal changes involving increases in the size of selected bedrooms, readjustment to internal stairs, reconfiguration of the layout of the basement carpark, reconfiguration of the shop layout, and increase in floor to ceiling heights.

 

Externally, the changes in the approved building involve an increase in the approved building height, application of moulded render elements to the external façade of the building, blocking-off the southern end of the colonnade in the northern building, provision of ramps for disabled access in the southern building and provision of planter beds along the northern boundary.

 

There will be minimal impact on surrounding properties arising from the increase in height in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy and views, and bulk and scale. The changes do not result in any increase in the floor area of the approved development. In addition, the proposal will maintain a similar design, bulk and scale to that originally approved in the streetscape and locality. The changes to the approved building are considered reasonable and the application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The modifications to the approved building comprise the following:

 

Internal

 

1.   Increase in the size of selected bedrooms by reconfiguring the internal layout of dwelling units and deleting storage areas within the dwelling units. The applicant advises that this amendment improves the amenity of future residents of the dwelling units.

 

2.   Readjustment of internal stairs. This readjustment involves rationalising the space within internal stairwells by deleting unnecessary storage areas originally proposed within the common stairwells. This has allowed additional floor areas to be transferred from common circulation areas to individual units without compromising access requirements of the BCA.

 

3.   Reconfiguration of basement carpark layout. The reconfiguration involves rationalising the storage areas within the basement and extension of the basement footprint by approximately 24sqm to provide for a pair of stacked carparking spaces.

 

4.   Increase in the floor to ceiling heights. The applicant advises that the approved development had floor to floor heights of 2.55m making it impossible to achieve the minimum 2.4m floor to ceiling height. The development has been amended to provide for a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.6m.

 

External

 

1.   Increase in the height of the building in selected sections by 400mm resulting in a height of 9.4 m along the Anzac Road frontage, and by 900mm in two small sections resulting in a height of 9.9m in two small sections, that is, at the two ventilation stacks on the Beauchamp Road and Anzac Parade frontages.

 

2.   Application of moulded render elements to sections of the external façade of the building to achieve a consistent façade treatment for the whole building.

 

3.   Blocking-off the southern end of the shopping colonnade in the northern building to achieve disabled access in accordance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. .

 

4.   Provision of 1:14 gradient ramps for disabled access in the southern building.

 

5.   Provision of 400mm high planter beds along the northern boundary.

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The property is located on the south-eastern corner of the intersection of Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road. The subject site comprises two lots – Lot 1 DP 701825, which is the larger lot fronting Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road, and Lot 2 DP 720793, which is a smaller lot at the rear.

 

The site is irregular in shape with a total site area of 4,767 sqm., and has a western frontage to Anzac parade of approximately 92.98 m,  a northern frontage to Beauchamp Road of approximately 41.26 m, an eastern boundary of approximately 85.72m, and a southern boundary of approximately 59.68 m. The subject site is currently undergoing demolition and excavation.

 

The immediate locality is characterised predominantly by residential development. Adjoining the subject site to the east is a single-storey brick and tiled roof dwelling house fronting Beauchamp Road, a child-care centre fronting Strickland Avenue, and a one and two storey brick and tile roof dwelling house fronting Chelmsford Avenue; to the south is a single-storey brick and tile dwelling house fronting Anzac Parade, and the back yard of a two-storey brick and tile dwelling house fronting Chelmsford Avenue; to the west on the opposite side of Anzac Parade is a park; and to the north on the opposite side of Beauchamp Road are a number of three-storey brick and tiled roof residential flat buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 407/2000 for the demolition of existing the building and erection of a three-storey mixed commercial and residential development containing 52 dwelling units and associated basement carparking was approved by the Health Building and Planning Committee on 21 November 2000. 

 

As the subject site exceeds 4000 sqm in area, a Master Plan was prepared for the subject site in accordance with Amendment No 17 to the Randwick LEP 1998, and submitted to Council in September 2000. Following exhibition from 11 September to 13 October 2000, the Master Plan was approved and adopted on 21 November 2000.

 

A section 96 application was approved on 24 July 2001 to replace the service lifts with pedestrian ramps; relocate the substation; retain the existing basement structure; revise the vehicular ramp into the basement carpark; and replan the layout of the garbage area, driveway, basement and residential building Blocks A and B.

 

The current amendments are consistent with the adopted Master Plan and do not require the Master Plan to be amended.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submissions were received.

 

TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

5.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

No objections in relation to building and construction issues are raised to the application.

 

5.2  Engineering Issues

 

No objections in relation to engineering issues are raised to the application.

 

5.3  Landscape Issues

 

No objections in relation to landscaping issues are raised to the application.

 

5.4  Drainage Issues

 

No objections in relation to drainage issues are raised to the application

 

5.5  Traffic/Parking Issues

 

No objections in relation to traffic and parking issues are raised to the application.

 

6.6  Waste Management Comments

 

No objections in relation to waste management issues are raised to the application.

 

6.    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

 

7.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the development as modified is substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

 

 

9.1  Substantially the same 

 

The proposed modification to the approved development comprising the increase in the size of selected bedrooms, readjustment of internal stairs, reconfiguration of the layout of the basement carpark, and increase in floor to ceiling height, increase in the height of the building, changes in the external façade, provision of disabled access and provision of planter beds will not alter the proposal from that originally approved. Overall, the changes to the approved building results in a development that is substantially the same as that originally approved.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

As noted above the owners/occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on 1 October 2002.  As a result, no submissions were received.

 

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.

 

10.1   Local Environmental Planning Instrument's and State of Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

 

The changes to the approved building result in an increase in the height of selected sections of the proposed development to 9.4m generally with the exception of two ventilation stacks which will reach a maximum height of 9.9m. The amended proposal exceeds the maximum 9m building height control applicable to the site under the Randwick LEP 1998. This increase in the height of the proposal beyond the statutory control is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ The increase is limited to small select sections of the building that will not result in any perceptible increase in visual bulk and scale especially when viewed from the street. In particular, the increase in the height of the ventilation stacks are localised occurring only for a maximum length of 1.8m at the road frontages.

 

§ The increase in height does not result in any significant increase in overshadowing of residential properties as indicated in the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant.

 

§ The increase in building height arises from the need to increase floor to ceiling heights of the proposed development to provide for reasonable living amenity within the proposed dwelling units. 

 

The current proposal will not result in any increase in  floor area.

 

10.2   Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

The amended proposal will comply with the carparking requirements of the DCP –Parking.

 

10.3   Site Suitability

 

The subject site is zoned Local Business 3B and Special Uses 5 and has been approved for the erection of mixed residential and commercial development comprising 52 dwelling units and 2 retail units and associated carparking. The changes to the approved building are considered appropriate in relation to the attributes and constraints of the site, which remain unchanged from the original proposal.

 

10.4   Urban Design

 

Whilst the changes to the building largely involve internal changes to the layout of the approved development, the increase in floor to ceiling height results in an overall increase in height from the approved 9m to a maximum 9.9m in selected sections of the building. The effect of this increase, visually, is minor and does not result in a dominant builtform nor is it inconsistent in the existing streetscape. The articulation and modulation of the two buildings remain essentially the same as that originally approved. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the proposed extension of the two buildings results in a configuration and design that is consistent with the overall approved development, and does not result in any noticeable increase in visual bulk, height and scale.

 

The application of moulded render elements in the north-facing façade of the northern building represents a continuation of similar features in the west facing façade of the southern building thus achieving a uniformity in design in the overall building.

 

The deletion of storage space within the individual dwelling units to increase the size of bedrooms is considered acceptable as the proposal provides for ample common storage space and individual storage units in the basement carpark.

 

10.5   Landscaping

 

The subject amendments result in a minor reduction in landscape area of approximately  24 sqm to accommodate a pair of stack car parking spaces. This reduction is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the landscaping provided in the original approved proposal as it occurs in a recessed area which receives minimal sunlight and therefore not conducive to planting. Furthermore, there is no prescribed control for landscaping in commercial zones.

 

The proposal provides for planter beds along the Beauchamp Road frontage of the site with a height of 400mm. This element will provide some visual interest to the streetscape. A condition will be applied requiring maintenance of the plantings in this planter bed by the body corporate.

 

10.6   Impact on adjoining development

 

 

 

10.6.1  Loss of sunlight

 

The increase in height in the amended development is considered minor and does not result in any significant changes to the overshadowing of adjoining and surrounding properties proposed under the originally approved proposal.

 

The amended building height still allows for adequate sunlight penetration and air ventilation within the proposed development.

 

10.6.2  Loss of Privacy

 

The amended proposal does not introduce any new windows or balconies and therefore does not give rise to loss of privacy.  

 

10.6.3  Loss of views

 

The increase in the height of the proposal does not affect any views as the surrounding land is relatively flat and there are no apparent significant views currently enjoyed by surrounding properties that are affected by the proposed development.

 

10.7     Carparking

 

The proposal reconfigures the layout of the carparking spaces resulting in a pair of stacked car parking spaces. The stacked carspaces are considered acceptable subject to a condition requiring that these be allocated to one individual dwelling unit. The proposal does not result in any changes to the number of carparking spaces approved under the original proposal.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The modification of the approved development to increase the size of selected bedrooms, readjust internal stairs, reconfigure the layout of the basement carpark, increase floor to ceiling heights increase in the height of the building, changes in the external façade, provision of disabled access and provision of planter beds is considered acceptable. The amendments do not substantially change the originally approved development and do not give rise to any adverse impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties. The proposal involves changes to the layout and configuration of the approved development that generally improves the efficiency and function of the proposed development. In view of the above, it is recommended that the section 96 application be approved.

 

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 407/2000  to increase the size of selected bedrooms, readjust internal stairs, reconfigure the layout of the basement carpark, and increase floor to ceiling heights at 1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

1.         That Condition No. 1 be amended to read:

 

“1.       The development shall be implemented substantially in accordance with the details set out on the plans numbered DA02 to DA08, stamp-dated received by Council on 4 May 2000, and amended plans numbered DA02, stamp-dated received by Council on 1 November 2000; on the Section 96 plans numbered Sec 96 – 02 to 08, dated received by Council on 23 May 2001; and on the Section 96 plans numbered Sec A01 D, A02 C, A03 C, A04 B, A05 B, A 06 B, A07 C, A08 B, A09 B, A10 C, A11 B, A12 B, A13 B, A14 B, A15 B, and A 16 B dated received by Council on 8 October 2002, and on the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder and/or as may be shown in red on the attached plans.”

 

2.         That the following conditions be added as follows:

 

“98.        The pair of stacked carparking spaces marked R59 and R60 on drawing No. A01 D shall be allocated exclusively to one  individual dwelling unit.”

 

“99.        Twenty four bicycle storage spaces shall be provided for in the basement carpark.”

 

“100.    The plantings in the planter bed along the Beauchamp Road frontage of the development shall be maintained in a suitable healthy condition at all times by the body corporate of the development.”

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Attachments

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 











 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 74/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

36 McKeon Street, Maroubra  2035

 

 

DATE:

15 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0353/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 353/2002 for demolition the existing mixed commercial and residential building and construction a new mixed residential/commercial building containing three (3) retail premises, 30 residential units (21x1 bed, 4 x 1 bed plus study, 2 x 2 bed and 3 x 2 bed plus study) with basement parking for 43 vehicles and stratum and strata subdivision 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 9 October 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

9 October, 2002

FILE NO:

353/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish the existing mixed commercial and residential building and construct a new mixed residential/commercial building containing (3) retail premises, 30 residential units (21 x 1 bed, 4 x 1 bed plus study, 2x 2 bed and 3 x 2 bed plus study) with basement parking for 43 vehicles and stratum and strata subdivision

PROPERTY:

 36 McKeon Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Glenayr Street P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $4.15 million.  The application has also been referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Greenwood and Whitehead.

 

The applicant seeks approval to demolish the existing mixed residential/commercial building and erect a new mixed residential/commercial building containing three (3) retail units, 30 residential units, basement parking for 43 vehicles and stratum and strata subdivision. 

 

During the advertising and notification period, five submissions by way of objection to the proposal were received. The main concerns raised relate to building bulk and scale, setbacks, height, parking provision and noise. 

 

The proposal does not meet the floor space ratio 2:1 standard applicable to the site or the height control of twelve metres (12m) under Randwick LEP1998. Objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 have been submitted in this regard. The objections are considered to be well founded and demonstrate that strict compliance with the development standards is both unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances. 

 

The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, Development Control Plan Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct, Development Control Plan Parking and SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. 

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal achieves a quality design that will make a positive contribution to the locality.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing building on the site and the construction of a split four storey mixed use development containing three (3) retail units, 30 residential apartments (21 x 1 bed, 4 x 1 bed plus study, 2 x 2 bed and 3x 2 bed plus study) plus basement level car parking for 43 cars and stratum and strata subdivision.  

 

The proposed basement, which is accessed from McKeon Street, contains 2 levels.  The lower basement accommodates parking for 27 vehicles, plant room, lift, stairs and bicycle storage. 

 

The ground floor level (level 1) is set higher than the street level while basement level 1 is set lower than the street level.  These levels comprise 3 retail units fronting McKeon Street, car park access, parking for 16 cars, pedestrian entrance to the residential apartments, garage rooms and lifts. 

 

The first floor level (level 1A and 2) comprise 10 x 1 bedroom units, access to apartments on level 2A, lift, stairs, private terrace areas and communal landscaped areas. 

 

The second floor level (level 2A and 3) comprises 5 x 1 bedroom units, 5 x 2 bedroom units (accessed off level 4) lift and stairs (not accessible from these levels) and private terrace areas. 

 

The third floor level (level 3A and 4) comprises 5 x 1 bedroom units, the upper level of 5 x 2 bedroom units, stairs and private terrace areas. 

 

The fourth floor level (level 4A) comprises 5 x 1 bedroom units accessed from level 4, lift stairs, private terrace areas and common roof terrace. 

 

The proposed stratum subdivision involves one stratum lot being strata subdivided into 30 new residential allotments and one stratum lot being strata subdivided into 3 new retail allotments.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of McKeon Street between Hereward Street to the west and Marine Parade and Maroubra Beach to the east.  The site is a regular shape with a frontage of 33.91m to McKeon Street, a depth of 32.615m and a total site area of 1105.97m2.  Levels fall slightly across the site from the north west corner to the south east corner by 1.17m.  Due to previous excavation, the adjoining land to the north is located at a higher level. 

 

The site is located within the Maroubra Beach commercial centre in close proximity to Maroubra Beach.  The site currently contains a mixed use three storey building containing retail units at ground floor (setback 1.8m from the street alignment) and residential units above setback 8.4m from the street alignment.  The building is of a 1970’s architecture style and is constructed of red brick with a hipped and tiled roof.  The existing building has a height of 12.4m to its ridgeline.  It is setback 4.4m (min) from its east (side) boundary, 5.8m (min) from its west (side) boundary and 4.8m from its north (rear) boundary

 

To the north of the subject site is a residential flat building at No. 21 Hereward Street and the rear portion of the residential flat building at No. 38 McKeon Street, which has a frontage to McKeon Street and is an L shaped building which wraps around the north and east boundaries of the site. 

 

To the south of the site on the opposite side of McKeon Street is a two storey building and residence above (No. 31A).  To the west of this building is a 3 storey commercial building and residential building at No 29 McKeon Street and to the east of Fenton Street there is a 2 storey terrace of commercial/retail building.

 

To the west of the subject site is a two storey terrace style building running from the corner of Hereward Street to the subject site (No. 24-34) adjacent to the subject site. 

 

To the east the site is adjoined by a part three (3) part four (4) storey residential flat building at No. 38 McKeon Street, which wraps around the east and north boundaries of the site.  At ground level there is vehicle driveway which runs along the east boundary of the site providing access to the garages.  The west facing elevation of the building facing the subject site contains high level windows at the first, second and third level. 

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

Relevant history of the site:

 

91/00115/DZ       Use shop 1 as a newsagency                             App 08/04/91

 

78/01549/BZ       Squash Courts                                                  App 01/01/78

 

80/00467/BZ       8 Flats                                                              App 01/01/80

 

78/00084/DZ       To erect a squash court                                     App 11/07/78

 

84/00254/DZ       Use premises as a clothing and plant shop         App 10/09/84

 

81/00040/SS        Strata Subdivision                                             App 25/11/81

 

A preliminary site investigation report has also revealed that between 1964 and 1978 the site was used and operated as a Service Station.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1       Objections

 

Ms U Vollmer-Conna – 20 Wride Street, Maroubra.

 

·      Height exceeds maximum height limit.

·      Excessive development of the site.

·      During public consultation for new LEP and DCP residents were unanimous that height limit not exceed 12m. 

·      This is this the first substantial development after the introduction of the new controls – if Council permits deviation it will set a precedence that ‘makes a mockery of the consultation process’.

·      Residents have hopes that future development results in ‘good taste’.

·      Believes that the village character must be preserved and it does not need another ‘ugly, huge box’. 

 

            P. Hee – 54 Walker Street, Maroubra

 

·        Objects to the size of development because of the noise caused to the nearby properties by up to 43 vehicles exiting and departing the premises, in particular, during nocturnal hours.

·        Loss of privacy caused to nearby properties by the additional dwellings where the height is increased.

·        The spillage of light caused to nearby properties during nocturnal hours resulting in loss of privacy.

·        Increased noise from development resulting in disruption to privacy of nearby properties.

·        Increased height and casting of shadow over nearby properties.

·        Effect on the flow of motor traffic caused by up to 43 vehicles in McKeon Street.

·        The effect on the flow of pedestrian caused by 43 vehicles.

 

R. G Rose – 12 Wride Street, Maroubra

 

·        Height of development exceeds height limit by 2m – the rear is 14 m high.

·        The commercial area was recently rezoned.

·        This application is the first to be submitted under the new zoning and if the application is approved it will set a precedent for future applications to exceed the limit.

 

S. Ohanian (for J and S Ohanian) – 1 Severn Street, Maroubra

 

·        Number of dwellings and height of the building are excessive. Most of the buildings are 3 storeys and the additional storey of the development will have a detrimental impact affect on the surrounding residents and environment.

·        The number of dwellings will exacerbate an already overpopulated area.

·        Any future buildings developments should only be allowed to replicate the size and capacity of the existing buildings.

·        The number of basement parking spaces proposed is inadequate as most households have 2 cars- at least 17 cars will be seeking parking on the already overflowing street.

·        Requests that the application only be approved if height is at 3 storeys, the capacity is similar to the current building and 2 spaces be provided for each unit.

 

Giles Payne and Co (on behalf of the proprietors at 38 McKeon Street, Maroubra)

 

·      Concerned about the bulk, scale, height and siting of the development onto the common side boundary and its relationship to the adjoining residential flat building (No. 38). 

·      The development exceeds the statutory height and floor space ratio controls of the RLEP.  The resultant bulk, scale and height will have significant impact on the adjoining residential flat building (No. 38).

·      The variations sought will impact on their client. The application should be refused or amended plans be submitted addressing the excessive scale and insufficient side setback along the eastern boundary.

·      The Statement of Environmental Effects incorrectly claims that most west facing windows of 38 McKeon Street are secondary windows.  The outlook from all west facing windows will be to a sheer wall that has no setback.

·      The statement is silent on impacts of the siting and height of the development on No. 38 McKeon Street.

·      The Statement is erroneous in that it states that building to the side boundary reinforces the traditional built form.  The built form in this segment of McKeon Street includes strata title buildings that are setback from their side boundaries. 

·      The DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct allows building to be built to side boundaries where they will match adjacent buildings – the nil setback fails to adequately consider the impact on the adjoining building and overall streetscape. 

·      The existing building at No. 38 McKeon Street is strata titled and therefore questions as to whether any future development of that site would observe the side setback proposed in this application.

 

5.2       Support

 

No letters of support were received during the notification period.

 

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

 

Council’s Building Surveyor has provided the following comments:

 

I refer to the above premises which is the subject of an application seeking consent to erect a four storey Class 2 multi unit housing development containing 30 occupancies with four class 6 commercial occupancies at ground level and Class 7 basement garage providing carparking for 43 vehicles and associated storage.

 

The applicant has sought advice from Access Australia Consultants who have reached the conclusion that equitable access will be provided to each of the commercial tenancies. It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable level of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and specific reference should be made to this report in any consent granted.

 

Should the application be approved, 32 conditions and one advisory condition have been recommended.

 

6.2.      Engineering Issues

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments:

 

Amended plans/additional details received

In response to our memo dated 29 July 2002, the following amended plans were received:

 

·    Drawing No. DA 04, Rev D, by Turner and Associates dated 6/08/02

·    Drawing No. DA 03, Rev D, by Turner and Associates dated 6/08/02

·    Revised stormwater concept plan, Drawing No. SWC-01, Rev B, by Henry and Hymas Consulting Structural Engineers dated 12/08/2002

 

In response to our memo dated 27 August 2002 the following additional details were received

 

·    An amended 88B instrument (received 6/09/20022) which:

1.   Prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 6.65 (AHD); and;

2.   Prohibits any objects being placed with the 1.5 metre splay corner on the south eastern side of the driveway, which may cause a reduction in site distance for vehicles leaving the site. 

 

·    Concept details for the proposed flood resistant doors along the McKeon Street site frontage. These details included a letter from Henry and Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers which details the proposed method for ensuring that the doors (constructed below the flood level) will not be adversely affected by flooding, and also states that Henry and Hymas will provide final certification that the doors are adequate.

 

A further amended level 1 and basement floor plan (Drawing No. DA 04, Rev E, by Turner and Associates dated 16/09/02) was received on the 19/09/2002. The AIS Department does not object to the changes shown on this amended plan.

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra to relocate/remove/replace the telephone booths that are currently located in front of the entrance to one of the proposed café/restaurants. The new location shall be approved by both Telstra and Council. The applicant is advised to Contact Council’s Parks and Recreation Coordinator on 9399 0920 regarding the new location for the telephone booth.

 

6.3.      Landscape Issues

 

There are several trees, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order that will be affected by the proposed works. All of these trees are located along the western and northern property boundaries and will require removal in order to allow for the proposed basement car park. All trees are between 6 and 9 metres tall and in average to poor health. The majority of the trees are immature specimens and of a species that are considered environmental weeds within the City of Randwick. As such permission should be granted for the removal of all trees from the site.

 

6.4.      Drainage Issues

 

On site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

The subject development site is located in an area that may be subject to stormwater inundation from an overland flow path running down McKeon Street.

 

A flood study commissioned by Council and undertaken by Willing and Partners has determined the 1 in 100 year flood level in the vicinity of the subject development to be at RL 6.35 (AHD) with a flow of 14.08m3/s down McKeon Street.

 

To ensure that backwater effects from the overland flow down McKeon Street do not affect the flood level at the development site, a HEC-RAS analysis of the overland flow was undertaken by Henry and Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers. The results of this analysis indicated that the overland flow will not affect the100 year ARI flood level of 6.35 (AHD).

 

To prevent floodwater affecting the subject development:

 

·    A high point shall be provided along the full width of the carpark entry ramp to RL 6.50 (AHD) (i.e. 150mm above the estimated 1 in 100 year flood level).

·    The floor level of all habitable and storage areas for the residential and retail components of the development should be at a minimum RL of 6.65 (AHD) (i.e. elevated at least 300mm above the 1 in 100 flood level).

 

The submitted level 1 and basement plan (Drawing No. DA 04, Rev E, by Turner and Associates dated 16/09/02) generally shows compliance with the above requirements although the front portions of the retail units are located below the estimated 1 in 100 year flood levels. It is understood that the front portions of the retail premises have been located below the flood level to enable the retail units to have a ‘shop front’ at street level. It is considered that the this proposal is satisfactory provided that:

 

1.     All areas below the estimated flood levels are constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation.

 

2.     There are no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods which may be affected by stormwater below RL 6.65 (AHD).

 

3.     A restriction to user is attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 6.65 (AHD) within the front portion of the retail premises.

 

4.     Flood resistant doors and walls are installed along the McKeon Street site frontage to a height of RL 6.65.

 

5.     The floor levels at the front of the retail premises are constructed at least 50 mm above the issued alignment level at the property boundary.

 

The applicant has submitted a draft 88B instrument in accordance with points 2 and 3 above which shall be placed on the title of the subject property upon completion of the construction works. (It is noted that there are no onsite detention requirements for the subject development site and consequently the 88B instrument may need to be amended to remove the positive covenant and restriction to user relating to the on site detention area prior to it being attached to the title of the property).

 

Concept details of the proposed flood resistant doors have been submitted in accordance with point 4 and Drawing No. DA 04, Rev E, by Turner and Associates dated 16/09/02 demonstrates compliance with point 5.

 

Point 1 shall be addressed by condition.

 

6.5.      Traffic/Parking Issues

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings should be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings.

 

Rather than providing a splay corner on the south eastern side of the driveway, the applicant has indicated that they intend to provide a full height glazing wall within the 1.5 metre splay corner and have provided a restriction within the draft 88B instrument which prohibits any objects which may obstruct site distance for vehicles leaving the site being placed within the splay corner.  This is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Comments from the Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted development application with the plans dated 2/04/02 and has provided comments in a separate report dated 26 July 2002 (copy attached). The following recommendations were made in the report:

                                                                                          

1.   The proposal is deficient by 1 parking space. An additional space should be provided for retail/commercial use.

 

2.   All parking spaces should be a minimum 2.5 metres wide.

 

3.   The 5 business and 8 visitor parking spaces should be located on the basement 1 level and signposted and line marked accordingly.

 

4.   The width of the dead end aisle (adjacent to parking spaces 17-23 and 37-43) should be increased from 5.8 metres to 6.2 metres.

 

Subsequent to the Traffic Engineer reviewing the submitted documentation, the applicant has submitted the amended plans (Drawing No. DA 04, Rev E, by Turner and Associates dated 16/09/02 and  Drawing No. DA 03, Rev D, by Turner and Associates dated 6/08/02) which address most of the traffic issues listed above. The amended plans show:

 

1.     All parking spaces (except two small car parking spaces) being a minimum 2.5 metres wide.

 

2.     The 5 business and 8 visitor parking spaces located on the basement 1 level.

 

3.     The width of the dead end aisle (adjacent to parking spaces 17-23 and 37-43) being increased from 5.8 metres to 6.2 metres.

 

It is noted that in increasing the aisle width the FHR room door has been made to partially open into parking space 24. The EPCD Department to determine whether this is satisfactory.

 

The amended plans are still deficient by 1 parking space. The EPCD Department to determine whether the applicant shall be requested to provide an additional parking space.

 

Any enquires regarding the traffic/parking issues should be directed to Council’s Traffic Engineer on 9399 0914.

 

6.6.      Waste

 

The residential garbage area has been sized to contain a total of 30 x 240 litre bins and a retail garbage area has been provided with adequate space for 8 x 240 litre bins. These garbage facilities are considered to be adequate.

 

6.7.      Environmental Health

 

Issues

 

A preliminary site investigation report, dated July 2002 for 36 McKeon St Maroubra has been submitted by Aargus Australia. Upon assessment of the report it has been revealed that between 1964 and 1978, the site was used and operated as a Service Station. This information therefore raises concerns in relation to potential site contamination.

 

The results of the assessment concluded that the site requires further sampling to determine if the subject site is suitable for the proposed development. Further investigations have been carried out and the environmental consultant has determined that the site is suitable for the existing and proposed uses and development.

 

General

 

All future fit outs and development of the commercial and retail premises will require further assessment in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Other issues to be considered in the DA, not included in this assessment:

·    Disabled access and facilities

·    Construction site management including working hours and noise

·     Fire safety & BCA criteria

 

6.8.      Heritage Issues

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comments:

 

The subject site is located within the Maroubra Beach commercial centre and is adjacent to the Maroubra Bay Hotel, which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the building describes it as “a good example of a 1920s beachside hotel.  …  Capable of reconstruction as a fine example of Late Edwardian commercial building.”  The subject site is occupied by a three storey mixed commercial/residential building comprising ground floor retail and parking, and upper level residential.  The retail section of the building is slightly set back from the street and the residential levels further back behind a balcony over the shops.  A central stair between the shops provides access to the residential levels.  It appears that the building was constructed in the 1970s.  The residential buildings to the east of the subject site, comprising three levels over ground level parking have large setbacks from the street.  The two storey commercial/residential buildings to the west of the subject site are built to the street alignment.

 

The application proposes to demolish the existing building and to construct a new mixed commercial/residential building.  The site falls towards McKeon Street and the building is in a split level configuration.  The front of the building comprises ground level retail and three levels of residential accommodation over basement parking.  The rear of the building comprises four levels of residential accommodation over two levels of basement parking.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment Report prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates.  The HIA notes that the heritage item is located some distance to the east of the subject site, that the scale and bulk of the proposed building will not detract from the streetscape, that the heritage listing of the Hotel was made of the basis of its streetscape dominance rather than any contribution made by surrounding buildings, and that the proposal may lead to a general improvement in the context of the Hotel.

 

There are no heritage objections to the proposal in terms of footprint and building envelope.  The setbacks and height of the proposed building will improve the consistency of the streetscape in McKeon and will better define the space of the street than the existing building.  The Maroubra Bay Hotel has a scale of three storeys to Marine Parade and McKeon Street.  The streetscape elevation included in the submission does not indicate the scale of the proposal in relation to the Hotel.  It appears however that the overall height of the proposed building will be comparable to the Hotel, while the section of the building, which is built to the street alignment, will be lower than the Hotel and will be compatible with the heights of adjacent buildings to the east and west.  I am satisfied that the height of the proposal will not be overly dominant in the streetscape and will not challenge the landmark character of the Maroubra Bay Hotel.

 

In terms of the McKeon Street elevation, the proposed balconies provide depth to the front facade, which is typical of traditional buildings, and the vertical blades dividing the balconies relate to the bay widths of traditional facades.  Given the character of surrounding buildings there are no objections to the modern design and horizontal proportions of the proposal.  The size of the site is considered sufficient to allow some flexibility in choice of materials and finishes for the building.  A sample board  indicating details of materials and finishes should be requested.  Details of the proposed balcony balustrades should be sought, as clear glazed balconies to the extent proposed in the development would generally not be encourages as they provide insufficient privacy.

 

6.9.      Issues Raised by External Bodies

 

The application was referred to the Department of Land and Water Conservation at their request due to the location of the ground water table in relation to the basement car park.  The Department of Land and Water Conservation has advised that the proposal does not require a dewatering licence and as such is not integrated development.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4000m2, therefore a masterplan for the site is not required. 

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-     Building Code of Australia

-     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

-     SEPP 65

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3B 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:-

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

2:1

(2211.9m2)

2.16:1

(2 390m2)

No – SEPP 1 (Objection submitted

See Section 9.1.)

33 - Building Height

Max 12m

13.57m to roof top ridge (a considerable portion of the building is below 12m and only exceeds the height limit along a portion of the roof above the northern facing units. 

(14.4m to top of stair enclosure)      

No- SEPP 1 (Objection submitted See Section 9.2)

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Satisfactory – see Heritage Planners comments in section 6.6

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan No. Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct

 

b. Development Control Plan Parking

 

c.   Development Control Plan Section 94 Contributions

 

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.      Clause 32 – Floor Space Ratio

 

The subject site has an area is 1105.97m2.  Under the provision of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Clause 32(3) the permitted FSR is 2:1.  The applicant is proposing a FSR of 2.16:1.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards, and has stated that strict compliance with Clause 32 (3) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:-

 

·    The site has been extensively excavated (prior to the gazettal of RLEP 1998) and is well below the level of adjoining properties.

·    The proposed development is generally below the 12m height limit and only exceeds this height limit along a portion of the roof above the northern facing units along the eastern side at a maximum height of 13.57m (excluding the stair enclosure). 

·    The development is of high quality design and is not inconsistent in character, size bulk, scale, height and external appearance with other developments in the locality.  Namely the height of the building is consistent with that of other development in the vicinity along McKeon Street.  In particular, the proposal will be 3.79m lower than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the north (No. 21 Hereward Street), 0.01m lower than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the north (rear of No. 38 McKeon Street),1.95m higher than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the east (No. 38 McKeon Street) which ensures vistas to Maroubra Beach from Malabar Road are protected and its presentation when viewed from McKeon Street is consistent with the height analysis diagram contained in the DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct.

·    It is constructed to the street alignment and side boundaries of the site consistent with other commercial development in the vicinity and traditional built form of the locality.

·    It has a three storey street frontage height, which complies with the requirements the DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct.

·    It incorporates materials and finished appropriate within its context.

·    The design and appearance make a positive contribution to the McKeon Street streetscape.

·    The height, size, bulk and scale of the development is consistent with that of adjoining and surrounding development.

·    It provides adequate open space areas for private recreation as well as usable communal open space.

·    The development has been designed to respect visual and acoustic privacy by locating windows and balconies to avoid overlooking, areas of private open space are designed to provide privacy to the occupants and potential overlooking of adjoining properties is limited by way of separation distances, differences in levels and landscaping.

·    The development will not overshadow the living areas of adjoining residential development.

·    It will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area nor will it result in any unreasonable adverse impacts.

 

 

Comment

 

The objective or purpose of the floor space ratio development standard is:

 

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

 

The proposed development is compatible in bulk and scale with adjoining and nearby buildings in the streetscape and is consistent with the desired future character of the Maroubra Bay Town Centre.  Within the vicinity of the site, there are a number of three to four storey buildings including No. 38 McKeon Street which wraps around the northern and eastern boundaries of the subject site and is part 3 part 4 stories, No. 40 McKeon Street and No. 21 Hereward Street and the nearby Maroubra Bay Hotel. Both Nos. 21 Hereward and 38 McKeon Street at the rear of the site are located at a higher level than the subject site.  Also, within the vicinity of the site is the five (5) storey Maroubra Seals building.  There are also examples of mixed/residential buildings within the commercial centre built to the side boundaries.   It is considered that there will not be any adverse amenity impacts by way of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views on adjoining or nearby properties (See Section 9.5.6 and 9.7 of this report). 

 

The calculated FSR of the development includes the basement garbage store areas and disabled WC, which are substantially located below ground level and constitute 62m2 of floor space.  This space does not contribute to the visual bulk of the building.  Excluding the garbage areas and disabled WC from the floor space ratio calculations reduces the FSR to 2.1:1. 

 

To minimise the bulk and scale impacts of the development within the streetscape, the upper floor has been setback 4.6m from the front boundary, presenting a three storey scale building to the street.  Furthermore, the proposed landscaping to the rear courtyard comprising two layers of trees in planters boxes on the rear boundary assists in providing privacy to the occupants of the building.  It also assists in breaking up the bulk of the building when viewed from the rear as the trees will soften the appearance of the building. 

 

In regard to the McKeon Street facade, the proposed balconies add depth and articulation to the front façade.  Similarly, the rear elevation is also provided with balconies.  The use of a mix of colours, materials and textures break down the mass of both the front and rear elevations of the building and provide visual interest.   The vertical blades dividing the balconies balance the horizontality of the façade.  The building also provides an awning to help integrate the development will the adjoining No. 34 McKeon Street and improve pedestrian amenity in this portion of McKeon Street. 

 

The development is proposed to be built to both side boundaries and the front boundary.   The western wall of the adjoining residential flat building contains highlight style windows and there is considered adequate separation distance between the adjoining building and proposed external wall due to the existing driveway of the adjoining building.  It is considered that the proposed nil side setback will not result in unreasonable loss of privacy or significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining eastern building. 

 

In regard to the existing adjoining mixed commercial /residential building to the west at No. 34 McKeon Street, the existing windows on the eastern elevation of the building setback 1m to 1.2m from the side boundary.  The proposed development will not result in any significant additional privacy or overlooking impacts.  In addition, solar access to the living room will be adequately maintained as the living room is also served by a north east facing window at the rear.

 

At the rear of the site, there is a 8.6m setback from the rear boundary to the proposed balconies which is considered to be an adequate separate distance from the existing rear residential flat buildings to minimise overlooking impacts.

 

The SEPP 1 Objection reasonably addresses the objectives of the FSR clause and objectives of the zone.  The SEPP 1 Objection has demonstrated that strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in this instance. It is considered that the SEPP 1 Objection is well founded and worthy of support. 

 

9.2.      Clause 33  - Building Heights

 

Under the provisions of Clause 33(5) the maximum height of buildings in zone 3(B) is 12m.  The maximum height of the proposed building is 13.57m, which exceeds the height restrictions of Clause 33(5) of RLEP 1998.  It should be noted that the height of the building from the stair enclosure is 14.4m. However, the stair enclosure is considered to constitute a service installation and is therefore not included in the height calculations as permitted under Clause 33(6) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. 

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection, which argues that strict compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as follows:

 

·      The site has been extensively excavated (prior to the gazettal of RLEP 1998) and is well below the level of adjoining properties.

·      The proposed development is generally below the 12m height limit and only exceeds this height limit along a portion of the roof above the northern facing units along the eastern side at a maximum height of 13.57m (excluding the stair enclosure).  As a comparison the maximum ridge heights will be:

-       3.79m lower than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the north (No. 21 Hereward Street);

-       0.01m lower than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the north (rear of No. 38 McKeon Street);

-       1.95m higher than the maximum ridge height of the adjoining building to the east (front of No. 38 McKeon Street);

-       5.42m higher than the maximum ridge of the adjoining building to the west (No. 34).  

·      The height of the building is consistent with that of other development in the vicinity along McKeon Street, which ensures vistas to Maroubra Beach from Malabar Road are protected and its presentation when viewed from McKeon Street is consistent with the height analysis diagram contained in the DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct.

·      It is constructed to the street alignment and side boundaries of the site consistent with other commercial development in the vicinity and traditional built form of the locality.

·      It is between 3m (along McKeon Street) and 11m (at the rear) higher then Nos. 24 to  34 McKeon Street.

·      It has three storeys (9.615m) street frontage height, which complies with the 10m maximum height limit under the DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Beach Precinct.

·      The design and appearance of the building will make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

·      It will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and visual impact.

·      It will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area nor will it result in any unreasonable adverse impacts.

·      Promotes an increase in the availability of accommodation catering for all sections of the markets.

·      Notes that compliance with the external wall height could be achieved by dropping the ground floor of the building, however, this would have undesirable impacts including increasing the extent of excavation necessary to accommodate the building, would require the retail shops to be set below the flood plain level; and would impact upon the amenity of the lower level apartments to the rear as a result of an increase in the difference in levels with the adjoining buildings.

 

Comment

 

The purpose of the (Building Heights) Clause 33 (5) is:

 

To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and having regard for the amenity of surrounding buildings.

 

A significant portion of the proposed building is below the 12m limit of the RLEP 98.  Generally, the non-compliance of the building relates to the portion of the roof above the northern facing units at a maximum height of 13.57m. 

 

The height of the building is consistent and compatible with that of other development in the vicinity.  As detailed above, the height of the proposed building is lower than the height of No. 21 Hereward Street and rear portion of No. 38 McKeon Street to the north.  The building is 1.95m higher than the ridge of the adjoining building to the east at No. 38 McKeon Street and 5.42m higher than the ridge of the adjoining building at No.34 McKeon Street to the west.  In addition,  Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that I am satisfied that the height of the proposal will not be overly dominant in the streetscape and will not challenge the landmark character of the Maroubra Bay Hotel.

 

The building has a three storey (9.615m) street frontage height, which complies with the 10m maximum height limit under the DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Beach Precinct.

 

The proposed openings and balconies of the development have been designed to minimise overlooking of the adjoining premises as they face the street and the rear of the site.  At the rear of the site, there is an 11m separation distance between the proposed balconies and openings of the adjoining premises to the rear which is considered to be an adequate separation distance. Areas of private and communal open space have designed and located to ensure reasonable levels of privacy through landscaping and separation distance. 

           

The proposed development will not adversely overshadow the living areas of the adjoining buildings and as detailed on Section 9.7 of this report the proposed overshadowing impacts are considered to be within reasonable limits.  Also, as detailed in Section 9.7 of this report, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in significant view loss to adjoining and surrounding development.

 

The SEPP 1 Objection has addressed the stated and underlying objectives of the Clause 33 and has demonstrated that strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances. It is considered that the SEPP 1 Objection is well founded and worthy of support. 

 

9.3.      Clause 46 – Development Within the Vicinity of a Heritage Item

 

Pursuant to Clause 46 of RLEP 1998, when determining an application for consent to carry development on land within the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item.

 

The Maroubra Bay Hotel is identified as an item of local significance and is located on the corner of McKeon Street and Marine Parade, approximately 50-60m from the site.  As detailed above in Section 6.6 of this report, Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the application and advised that:

 

There are no heritage objections to the proposal in terms of footprint and building envelope…….  I am satisfied that the height of the proposal will not be overly dominant in the streetscape and will not challenge the landmark character of the Maroubra Bay Hotel.

 

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory in regard to Clause 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

 

9.4.      SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings is a matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.  The SEPP aims to ensure that residential flat buildings are better designed to improve their appearance and the streetscape and are socially and environmentally sustainable.  The SEPP contains ten (10) design quality principles and each are addressed below.

 

9.4.1.   Context

 

The proposed developments fits comfortably within the context of the Maroubra Bay Commercial Centre.  The design of the building positively contributes to the existing streetscape and responds to the objectives of the DCP. 

 

9.4.2.   Scale

 

The proposed bulk and scale of the development is compatible to adjoining and nearby development and the proposed height suits the scale of the street and surrounding buildings.

 

9.4.3.   Built Form

 

The proposed development has been designed as a modern contemporary building, however, retains a traditional form.  The form of the building is considered to be compatible within the streetscape and better defines the street edge. 

 

9.4.4.   Density

 

The floor space ratio is suitable for the site and is compatible to the density of surrounding buildings.  Furthermore, there is adequate infrastructure in the area to accommodate and sustain the proposed number of residential and commercial units in the development. 

 

9.4.5.   Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The Energy Report submitted with the application states that the overall concept of the development as well as specific design features achieve significant reductions in energy and the development will incorporate both passive and active energy saving features.  Also, all apartments have a northeast or south aspect and that the design form of the complex seek to take advantage of the site’s solar access potential. 

 

Conditions are recommended that adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials and that the consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures.

 

The proposed development achieves a NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars for each unit.

 

9.4.6.   Landscape

 

A landscape plan has been submitted with the application depicting landscaping to the rear communal courtyard, ground floor private courtyard and communal roof terrace.  The proposed landscaping contributes positively to contextual fit of the development and optimises usability, privacy, social opportunity  and respect for neighbour’s amenity.

 

9.4.7.   Amenity

 

The proposed development optimises amenity through appropriate room sizes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, privacy, indoor and outdoor spaces, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all groups and degrees of mobility.

 

9.4.8.   Safety and Security

 

The design is considered to be satisfactory in relation to safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

 

9.4.9.   Social Dimensions

 

The proposed development contains a mix of one (1) and two (2) bedroom dwellings to optimise housing provision to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood. 

 

9.4.10. Aesthetics

 

The proposed development design adopts appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours.  The aesthetics respond to the environment and context, in particular the traditional form of existing buildings in the streetscape, and the visual qualities of the foreshore area. 

 

9.5.      Development Control Plan Maroubra Beach Precinct

 

9.5.1.   Height/Setbacks

 

The proposed overall height exceeds the 12m height limit as specified under Clause 33 of RLEP 1998, however, as detailed above, the SEPP 1 Objection is considered to be well founded.

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives and controls of the DCP as the height of the proposed development is compatible with the height of other development with the vicinity including the Maroubra Bay Hotel, No. 38 McKeon Street, No. 40 McKeon Street, No. 21 Hereward Street and No. 29 McKeon Street on the opposite side of McKeon Street.  

 

The building has been designed to distribute building height and bulk on the site to ensure that there is no significant loss of amenity to adjacent sites, open spaces and public streets.  In this regard, the upper floor of the building has been setback from the street alignment so that reads as a predominately three storey form within the streetscape and the building is setback a minimum of 8.6m from the rear boundary to minimise impacts upon the adjoining property owners.  Furthermore, visual interest is achieved in the building façade by the proposed combination of colours, finishes and articulation of building parts.

 

In terms of setbacks, the building is proposed to be built to the street frontage and side boundaries.  At the rear, the setback of the building from the boundary is 8.6m

 

In regard to the front setback, the nil front setback of the proposed building will improve the consistency of the streetscape in McKeon Street and will better define the public domain than the existing building.  The proposed front setback satisfies the requirements of the DCP. 

 

At the rear, it is considered that the proposed 8.6m setback from the rear boundary to the proposed rear balconies and 10.8m setback to the external wall will provide an adequate separation distance between the proposed building and the existing south facing openings and balconies of the multi unit housing buildings at No. 38 McKeon Street and No. 21 Hereward Street.  Furthermore, at the rear, visual bulk and scale of the building will be softened by the proposed landscaping and tree plantings proposed to the rear planter boxes of the courtyard.

 

The eastern side setback of the proposed building is nil from the eastern boundary  of the site for a depth of 24m from the front boundary.  The adjoining premises (No. 38 McKeon Street) at ground level is setback around 7m from the front alignment while the upper floors are setback around 14m from the front alignment. No. 38 McKeon Street at ground level is setback around 1.7m from the side boundary while the upper floors are setback around 2.7m from the side boundary. The openings to the western elevation of No.38 McKeon Street are highlight style windows and the proposed development will not overlap any primary living room windows in the western elevation of the No. 38 McKeon Street.   In addition, the design of the proposed eastern external wall includes glass block windows and a combination of colours and material to provide visual relief.  Furthermore, the proposed development will not result in any adverse privacy or overshadowing impacts. It is considered that there is adequate separation between the properties and the proposed side setback of the development satisfies the requirements of the DCP.   

 

The western side setback is also nil along the western boundary of the site for 24m. The existing building at No. 34 McKeon Street is constructed along the western boundary of the site for 10.6m, beyond which it is set in from the boundary by 1m to 1.2m for a further depth of 11.9m.  The portion of No. 34 McKeon Street constructed along the boundary does not include any windows.  The portion of the building setback contains 3 windows and 3 doors on the ground floor and 5 windows on the upper floor facing the site.  The windows on the ground floor serve what appears to be an office, laundry/bathroom and store area.  The upper floor windows serve a bathroom, kitchen and living room.  In considering the impacts of the development, the majority of the windows are located to more passive use areas and the proposed development will not result in any significant privacy or overlooking impacts.  It should be noted that solar access and an outlook to the living room will be adequately maintained as the living room is also served by a north east facing window at the rear.  The proposed setbacks to the development are considered to satisfy the requirements of the DCP. 

 

            The maximum building height at the street alignment is 9.6m, which complies with the 10m requirement of the DCP. The upper floor is setback 4.6m from the street frontage and as detailed above in Section 9.2 the height of the building exceeds 12 m.  Although the 4.6m setback does not comply with the 5m setback requirement of the DCP, it is considered that the upper floor is sufficiently setback to minimise its impacts in the streetscape and to ensure that the building presents a three storey elevation to McKeon Street.

 

9.5.2.   Density

 

The ground floor of the development fronting McKeon Street provides retail/commercial units, which satisfies the requirements of the DCP.

 

As detailed in Section 9.1 of this report, the proposed floor space exceeds the RLEP 98 requirements, however, the SEPP 1 Objection is considered to be well founded and worthy of support.  Furthermore, the setbacks of the development are considered to be acceptable, the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the adjoining and surrounding development and the proposal satisfies the functional design requirements of the DCP as detailed below.

 

9.5.3.   Functional Design Requirements 

     

            In terms of the façade to McKeon Street, the balconies provide depth to the front façade, which is typical of traditional buildings and the vertical blades dividing the balconies relate to the bay widths of traditional facades.  Given the character of surrounding development it is considered that the modern design and horizontal proportions of the proposal enhance the streetscape.

 

            The design of the building has been articulated to provide a clearly defined base, middle and top and is divided vertically into five sections reflecting the traditional terrace built form and appearance of a street of buildings. 

 

            On the ground floor of the development, commercial/retail premises are provided at street level to activate the street frontage and invite interaction with the street. 

 

            Above the street level, the upper levels incorporate the provisions of balconies located off living areas of the units.  The balconies do not project over the street alignment and are designed to fit within the vertical and horizontal divisions of the building.

 

            The proposed development provides an awning over McKeon Street to provide continuous pedestrian shelter and amenity.

 

9.5.4.   Open Space and landscaping

 

Each unit has been provided a private courtyard or balcony ranging in depth from

13m2 to 43m2, with all balconies having a minimum depth of 2m.  The balconies do not project beyond the street alignment and do dominate the street façade. In order to provide usable open space to the occupants of the building, the proposal includes a reasonably sized communal landscaped courtyard at the rear of the building and communal roof terrace.

 

The landscape plan indicates that both areas are to be considerably landscaped.  The proposed landscaping to the rear courtyard assists in providing privacy to the occupants using the courtyard as it is proposed to plant two layers of trees in planter boxes on the rear boundary. There is also a landscaped planter box to the roof terrace to act as a barrier and mitigate overlooking impacts onto the balconies below. 

 

9.5.5.   Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

New openings and balconies are proposed to the southern (front) and northern (rear) elevations of the building.  Four (4) window glass blocks are proposed to the eastern elevation and one (1) is proposed to the western elevation.

 

The glass block window to the western elevation will overlook the roof of the adjoining building and will not result in any adverse overlooking impacts.  The windows to levels 2, 2A and 4 are high light style windows and will therefore not result in any adverse overlooking.  In regard to the window on 4A it has a lower sill height, however, due to its location in the elevation it will not result in adverse overlooking of any living rooms windows of the adjoining premises.  

 

The openings and balconies on the southern elevation will generally overlook the street and will not result in any adverse overlooking of adjoining premises.  At the rear of the proposed development the new balconies and doors are setback 8.6m and 10.82m respectively from the rear boundary.  It is considered that the setback provides an adequate separation distance between the proposed openings and existing openings and balconies of the adjoining rear residential flat buildings to ensure that overlooking impacts will not be unreasonable.

 

At the rear, on the ground floor, communal open space is proposed. Along the rear northern boundary of the ground common area, privacy will be provided to the courtyard by a double layer of trees to create a privacy screen from the surrounding multi unit housing buildings overlooking the site. 

 

Additional communal open space will be provided to the occupants by the proposed roof top terrace.  In order to enure that the terrace does not impact upon the privacy of the adjoining properties, it is recommended that the plans be amended to include a 1m wide planter to the eastern perimeter of the roof terrace, which will restrict overlooking of the adjoining properties front terrace.  It is considered that any potential noise impacts from the roof terrace will not be beyond reasonable expectations for a development within a commercial zone.

 

Conditions will be imposed that the development be constructed in accordance with the BCA and relevant acoustic standards.  Furthermore, Council’s Environmental Health Officer has recommended conditions to ensure that the operation of plant and equipment comply with the relevant noise control criteria. 

 

9.5.6.   Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The site is located on the northern side of McKeon Street and runs in a north west/south west direction.  Twenty (20) out of the thirty (30) units have north/north east facing living areas.  The applicant has submitted an Energy Efficiency Report with the development application.    The residential units within the development have been assessed in terms of their passive energy design using the NatHERS.  The report states that:

 

Residential units chosen for rating were considered to encompass the diversity of design within the development in terms of energy efficiency.  Based upon our selective sample we find that all residential apartments within the development will receive between a 3.5 to 5 star rating.

 

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory in regard to the DCP requirements.

 

9.5.7.   Safety and Security

 

The proposed development satisfies the requirements of the DCP and includes identifiable entries for both the residential and commercial components, a clear distinction between entrances to public, semi-private and private areas, the façade of the building does not incorporate recessed doorways and windows at ground level, the foyer has been designed at a human scale and the building addresses the street. 

 

9.6.      Development Control Plan Parking

 

 

CONTROL

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Commercial Parking

1 space per 40m2 GFA

 

5 spaces

Yes

Subtotal

5 spaces

5 spaces

Yes

Residential

 

 

 

1 bed

1 space per unit

( 25 spaces)

25 spaces

Yes

2 bed

1.2 spaces per unit

(6 spaces)

5 spaces

No

Visitor Spaces

1 per 4 dwellings

(8 spaces)

8 spaces

Yes

Carwash Bay

1 per 12 dwellings (can be visitor spaces) (2 spaces)

0 space

No*

Subtotal

39

38 spaces

No

Total

44

43 spaces

No

Residential

1 per 3 dwellings (10)

10

Yes

Visitor

1 per 10 dwellings (3)

2

No

Total

13

12

No

* A condition of consent requiring two visitor spaces for carwashing facilities has been included in the Recommendation section of this report.

 

The development provides for a total of 43 car spaces, including 30 spaces for residents, 5 spaces for retail, 8 spaces for visitor parking and 12 bicycle spaces within the basement levels.  DCP Parking requires a total of 44 spaces, including provision for 31 residential spaces, 8 visitor spaces, 5 retail spaces and 13 bicycle spaces.  The proposed development also provides three disabled spaces.  It should be noted that the proposed study areas of the dwellings do not constitute a bedroom given their size and configuration.

 

The applicant has stated that the proposed parking provision of 43 spaces is satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·    One (1) space is provided for each of the thirty (30) residential units which is adequate given the site location in relation to public transport and facilities,

·    The parking provision complies with Council’s controls with regard to provision of spaces for bicycles, visitors and the commercial component,

·    The parking has been designed and located to be convenient for users and enables efficient use of car spaces and access ways.

·    The development is predominately underground, which will have no adverse impact on the streetscape,

·    The layout of the car park complies with the relevant Australian Standards

·    The proposed parking is consistent with the underlying objectives of the DCP.

 

In assessing the one (1) space shortfall in parking provision for the residential component, the proposed development will provide each unit with a car space and complies with the required number of visitor spaces and retail spaces. It is considered that the proposed number of parking spaces will met the needs of the occupants and provides an appropriate level of parking.  Furthermore, it is unlikely that the one (1) space shortfall will result in an unreasonable increased demand for on site parking within the area or traffic generation.  It should also be noted that the Maroubra Beach area is well serviced by public transport, the site is located within close proximity to services and facilities and there is a significant level of on-street parking available within the vicinity. 

 

In regard to the one (1) space shortfall in bicycle parking, the proposed development provides the required ten (10) residential spaces and the shortfall relates to the visitor spaces.  It is considered that the one (1) space shortfall in the visitor component can be supported as the proposed development meet the objectives and intent of the DCP as the development provides functional and secure facilities and is considered to be sufficient to met the needs of the occupants and their visitors. 

 

Vehicular access to the proposed basement car park is proposed via a 6m wide vehicle cross over on McKeon Street towards the eastern end of the frontage, situated adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to the development, between 2 retail units.  To ensure appropriate pedestrian safety, the applicants have submitted a 88B Instrument which prohibits objects being placed within the splay corner on the south eastern side of the driveway which may cause a reduction in site distance for vehicles leaving the site. 

 

The development does not comply with the required number of carwash bays for a development of this size and a condition of consent requiring two of the visitor spaces be constructed for the dual purpose of car washing has been included in the recommendations section of this report. 

 

In regard to pedestrian safety, the design encompasses full height glazing walls constructed adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the vehicular crossing.  Council’s Engineers raised concerns that items may be placed in the splay corner and obstruct sight distance.  The applicants have submitted to Council an 88B Instrument stating that proprietors shall not place any obstruction which will cause any reduction in the sight distance.  Council’s Engineers have advised that the 88B Instrument is satisfactory.

               

          The proposed parking layout and provision is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the requirements of the DCP. 

 

9.7.      Views and overshadowing

 

The applicant has submitted a photomontage looking south east from Malabar Road demonstrating the preservation of vistas to Maroubra Beach from Malabar Road. 

 

As detailed above in Section 9.1.3 of this report, the proposed height, bulk and scale of the development is not inconsistent with adjoining development.  The proposed development is lower than the maximum ridge heights of the adjoining buildings to the rear at No. 21 Hereward Street and No. 38 McKeon Street, however, is higher than the adjoining building to the west at No. 34 McKeon Street.

 

The assessment indicates that is likely that there will be some view loss to the openings and balconies to the upper floor of the adjoining rear building at No. 21 Hereward Street.  However, it is not considered to be significant view loss given the distance and quality of the view and that it is only available over numerous roof tops.  It should be noted that No. 21 will retain views to the south over the valley and that there is a separation of around 15m between the sites. 

 

The proposed development is visible from the adjoining development.  It is of a greater scale than the existing building on the site.  As such it will affect and impact upon the existing views from adjoining and surrounding development.  However, it is considered that the development will not result in the loss of substantial views of the ocean, headland, significant landmarks or buildings. 

 

In regard to overshadowing, on June 21 at 9.00am, the proposed additional overshadowing from the development will fall across McKeon Street and the front portion of the properties at 29 and 31A McKeon Street. At 12 noon on June 21, the development casts a shadow over half the width of  McKeon Street and to the east over the front portion of No. 38 and 40 McKeon Street.  At 3pm on June 21, the additional shadow increases over No. 38 and 40 McKeon Street.  The windows in the western elevation of the adjoining No. 38 McKeon Street are high light style windows.  There is a living room window to each of the units in the western elevation, however, there is also an opening to the living rooms in the eastern elevation of the building that open to the balcony of the units.   The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed development will not result in significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining or nearby premises living room windows or private open space and that overshadowing impacts are within acceptable limits. 

 

9.8.      Issues raised in Submission

 

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

 

 

9.8.1.   Impact from external wall on No. 38 McKeon Street

 

The eastern side setback of the proposed building is nil from the eastern boundary  of the site for a depth of 24m from the front boundary.  The adjoining property at No. 38 McKeon Street ground level is setback around 1.7m from the side boundary while the upper floors are setback around 2.7m from the side boundary.

 

In considering the proposed setback, the proposed external wall of the development adjoins the driveway of the adjoining multi unit housing building and the upper floor areas to No. 38 overlap the external wall of the No. 36 McKeon Street for a distance of around 10m. The existing openings to the western elevation of No. 38 McKeon Street that are overlapped are to hallways which are not primary living areas.  To provide visual relief and break up the mass of the eastern façade of the proposed building, the design includes glass block windows and a combination of colours and materials.  Impacts upon the adjoining No. 38 McKeon Street from the nil side setback are not considered to be adverse. 

 

It is noted that the adjoining building at No. 38 McKeon Street is strata titled and that the built form of No. 38 and 40 McKeon Street includes side setbacks from the side boundaries, while a portion of No. 34 McKeon Street is built to the side boundary.  In considering the objector’s concerns, the site is located within a commercial zone and the objectives of the DCP control for setbacks is to ‘create unity, a greater sense of activity and enhance safety in the public domain’.  It is preferable that new development reinforces and defines the street network and traditional street edge pattern of buildings within the commercial centre.  The proposed setbacks of the development provide a greater sense of enclosure and activity.  The setbacks also allow the public domain to be better defined and assist in providing greater continuity of the streetscape and a linkage with the Maroubra Bay Hotel, which acts a focal point of the town centre.

 

9.8.2.   Undesirable Precedent

 

The proposed development will not result in an undesirable precedent.  As detailed in the body of this report, the proposed height and floor space of the building is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standards, promotes the desired future character of the town centre, is compatible with adjoining and surrounding buildings and it will not result in any adverse impacts.

 

9.8.3.   Number of dwellings is excessive

 

The number and mix of dwellings is controlled by Council’s standards including FSR, parking, height and landscaping etc.  There is not standard restricting the number of dwellings on a site. 

 

As detailed in Section 9.1.2 of the report, the bulk and scale of the development is considered to be compatible to adjoining and surrounding development, the proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant controls and the SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 32 of the RLEP 98 is considered to be well founded.

 

9.8.4.   Impact of noise

 

It is anticipated that any noise generation from vehicles entering and exiting the site and from within the development generally will not be above a level that could be considered unreasonable within a commercial zone.  In addition, vehicles will enter and exit the site from McKeon Street and not at the rear adjoining existing multi unit housing buildings.  Also, a condition is recommended that the proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

9.8.5.   Impact of additional Traffic

 

In regard to the impact of increased traffic to the McKeon Street, the existing road networks are considered to be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the use.  The major portion of the development comprises residential units, which generate low level traffic movements, and the commercial tenancies are unlikely to generate significant volumes of traffic. It is therefore considered unlikely that the development will adversely impact upon the flow of traffic.

 

 

9.8.6.   Light Spillage

 

To minimise the impact of light spill upon adjoining properties, a condition is recommended that includes all external lighting is to be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents. 

 

9.8.7.   Effect on flow of pedestrians

 

The proposed development includes the erection of three (3) shops on the ground floor of the building to be occupied most likely by café/restaurants and commercial uses.  The proposed development will permit adequate access to and from the development without adversely impacting upon the flow of pedestrians.  In order to ensure pedestrian safety, the applicant has provided an 88B instrument, which prohibits any objects being placed with the 1.5 metre splay corner on the south eastern side of the driveway, which may cause a reduction in sight distance for vehicles leaving the site. 

 

9.9.      Section 94 Contributions

 

The proposal requires the following contributions:

 

Open space                                                                       $ 24 502.61

Community facilities                                                           $ 10 834.34

Townscape                                                                          $ 8 456.00

Administrative fee                                                                    $425.00

 

9.10.    Foreshore Area

 

The site is located within close proximity to the foreshore area.  The proposed development has been designed to ensure that the building generally reads as three stories to the street with the upper level setback to minimise its prominence in the streetscape. 

 

As detailed in this report, the bulk, scale and height of the development are considered to be compatible with adjoining and surrounding development and within the streetscape.  Furthermore, as stated by Council’s Heritage Planner, the setbacks and height of the proposed building will improve the consistency of the streetscape in McKeon and will better define the space of the street than the existing building……., the proposed balconies provide depth to the front facade which is typical of traditional buildings and the vertical blades dividing the balconies relate to the bay widths of traditional facades. 

 

To ensure that colours and materials are compatible within the area, it is recommended that Council issue a Deferred Commencement consent that requires details of the colours and materials to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development prior to the consent being issued.

 

 

9.11.    Strata subdivision

 

The applicant proposes to strata subdivision the proposed development, however, has not provided plans of the proposed lots for the development.  It is therefore recommended that a condition of consent be imposed that a separate development application for strata subdivision be submitted.

 

9.12.    Use of tenancies as café/restaurants

 

The applicant states on the plans that the proposed use of two of the retail units on the ground floor are for café/restaurants.  However, the application fails to provide details on the proposed layout, fit out, hours of operations, plant equipment and number of employees. It is considered that there is insufficient information to adequately consider the proposed uses and therefore, it is recommended that condition be imposed that requires separate development applications for each of the uses of the tenancies.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development satisfactorily addresses the relevant provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, DCP Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct and Parking, and SEPP 1 Objections to the floor area and building height standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact surrounding properties and is acceptable in terms of its bulk, scale, parking and traffic generation, and streetscape presentation. It represents a well designed building, which will make a positive contribution to the Maroubra Bay Town Centre and set a benchmark for future development.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 33 and 34 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) (relating to floor space and building heights) on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objective of the Clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality, and that Planning New South Wales be advised accordingly.

 

B.         That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(3) (Deferred Commencement) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 353/2002 to demolition of the existing mixed/commercial building and construction of a new mixed commercial/residential building containing 3 retail units, 30 residential units and associated parking at 36 McKeon Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Director Planning and Community Development:

 

1.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with adjoining buildings and buildings within the vicinity.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, prior to the consent being issued. 

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

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

 

Plans numbered

Dated

Received by Council

DA01 and DA02

Rev B

2.4.2002

24 June 2002

DA 03

Amended plan Rev D

6.8.2002

18 August 2002

DA 04

Amended plan Rev E

16.9.2002

25 September 2002

DA 05 to 08

Rev D

2.4.2002

24 June 2002

DA 09

Rev B

2.4.2002

24 June 2002

DA 10

Amended plan Rev D

6 .9.2002

25 September 2002

DA 11 to DA 13

Rev B

2.4. 2002

24 June 2002

DA 14

Rev C

2.4.2002

24 June 2002

DA 15 and DA 16

Rev B

2.4.2002

24 June 2002

 

 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

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

 

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

 

3.         In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 28 September1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council:

 

a)       for Open Space                                   $ 24,502. 61

b)         for Community Facilities                                         $ 10,834.34

c)         for townscape                                                          $ 8,456.00

d)         Administrative charge                                                   $425.00

 

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

 

4.         The Access Report prepared by Access Australia shall be implemented and complied with.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate Plans. 

 

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

 

6.         Separate development applications shall be required for the use and operation of all commercial units.

 

7.         A separate development application shall be submitted for the strata subdivision of the building.

 

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

 

9.         A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  An application form is available from Council or Sydney Water (call 13 20 92).

 

            Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will detail the water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please contact Sydney Water, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and the building, driveway or landscape design.

 

            The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development or release of the linen plan, as applicable.

 

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

 

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

 

12.       Adequate lighting for personal safety and security is to be provided in common and access areas of the development.  All external lighting is to be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents. 

 

13.       There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

14.       External walls sited less that 500mm from the boundaries of the site are to be erected as ‘face brickwork’ or other maintenance free materials, to ensure that adequate provisions are made for maintenance purposes within the property boundaries.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       A sign legible from the street must be permanently displayed to indicate that visitor parking is available on the site and these parking spaces must be clearly marked and accessible at all times.

 

20.       The car parking spaces and driveways must be kept clear of goods at all times and must not be used for storage purposes.

 

21.       Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

22.       A 1m wide planter box capable of accommodating at a soil depth of at least 600mm shall be provided to the eastern perimeter of the roof terrace to minimise overlooking impacts of the adjoining property.  Full details to be included in the construction Certificate 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:

 

23.       The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

24.       The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the use of the premises and the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

26.       All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

            Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

29.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, veranda’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovestated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

30.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that 'unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited' and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, in accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

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

 

31.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

32.       Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

33.       Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

34.       A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

35.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s approval:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

36.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

37.       Retaining walls or shoring must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, if the soil conditions require it, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

38.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

39.       In addition to the matters contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following matters are to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development consent, prior to the occupation of the building:

 

a)         car parking and vehicular access

b)         landscaping

c)         stormwater drainage

d)         external finishes and materials

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

42.       Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

43.       Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

44.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions at all times.

 

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

 

46.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

47.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·          location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·          the slope of the land

·          site access points and access control measures

·          location and type of all sediment control measures

·          location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·          material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·          location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·          proposed disposal of site water

·          location of building operations and equipment

·          proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

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

 

50.       A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

51.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

52.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

53.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

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

 

54.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

55.       Access and facilities for people with disabilities must (as a minimum) be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia, and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

56.       The applicant is to engage an EPA Accredited Site Auditor. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use.  A Statutory Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report is to be submitted to and accepted by Council, prior to the commencement of works, stating that the site is suitable for the intended development and use.

 

The owner of the site must comply with any additional conditions, which may be imposed or recommended by the EPA accredited site auditor as may be listed in the site audit statement. Written confirmation by the owner of the site is to be submitted to the Council stating all (if any) conditions will be adhered to.

 

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

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

58.       The operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

59.       The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance.

 

60.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The report is to certify that noise and vibration emissions from the development (including the proposed air conditioning units, mechanical ventilation systems and alike) will comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the NSW EPA guidelines, including the Industrial Noise Policy and the Environmental Noise Control Manual.

61.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA guidelines, including the Industrial Noise Policy and Environmental Noise Control Manual.

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

 

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

 

63.       Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

64.       Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer. Approval is to be obtained from Sydney Water.

 

65.       Washing of vehicles shall be conducted in an approved wash bay, which is covered and bunded to exclude rainwater. All wastewater from vehicle washing must be discharged to sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement from Sydney Water and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

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

 

66.       The use and operation of the commercial premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

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

 

68.       Mechanical ventilation systems must satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668. Details of any proposed Mechanical Ventilation Systems (including discharge locations) are to be included with the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 1989 and Council’s Food Premises Code:

 

69.       All food premises are to be subject to Council’s Food Premises Code and the Food Safety Standards under the Food Standards Code and details of compliance are to be shown on future Construction Certificate or Complying Development Certificate Applications (as applicable).  All food premises are to be registered with the Council, prior to Occupation and on an annual basis.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

70.       Legionella control – cooling towers must be registered with the Council on an annual basis and the systems are to be maintained and certified in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1991.

 

The premises are to be registered with Council together with payment of the approved fee, prior to occupancy of the building.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

71.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of Work Cover NSW.

 

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

 

72.       The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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.

 

73.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing and footpath by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

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

 

a.   Construct a full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b.   Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c.   Replace any damaged sections of Council’s kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

d.   Reconstruct the McKeon Street site frontage in accordance with Council’s McKeon Street Development Plan. It is noted that this will include footpath reconstruction along the full site frontage together with seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Parks & Recreation Coordinator. The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Parks and Recreation Coordinator on 9399 0920 regarding this matter.

 

e.   Construct a new double grated gully pit with a minimum kerb inlet of 1.8 metres infront of the proposed development, and connect the gully pit to Council’s existing trunk main in McKeon Street via a 375 mm diameter RRRCP (rubber ringed reinforced concrete pipe).

 

75.       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.

 

76.       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.

 

77.       Provision shall be made for 1.5 metre splay corners (or similar) on either side of side of the vehicular crossing to ensure that the driver of a vehicle stopped 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

78.       The internal driveway must be at least 5 metres wide for the first 5 metres inside the property.

 

79.       A work zone is to be provided in McKeon Street. The ‘workzone’ shall have a minimum length of 12 metres and the prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

80.       The visitor and commercial/retail parking spaces shall be clearly linemarked and signposted.

 

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

 

81.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level  (concrete/paved/ tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

82.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

83.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $596.80 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

84.       The floor level of the front sections of the commercial/retail premises shall be at least 50 mm above the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access (i.e. 50 mm above the back of the footpath). It is noted that this will require the pedestrian entrances to the retail premises being ramped up at least 50mm within the site.  This condition has been attached to minimize the potential for stormwater to enter the subject premises during minor storm events. The applicant shall contact Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0919 regarding this matter prior to preparing the plans for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

85.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra to relocate/remove/replace the telephone booths that are currently located in front of the entrance to one of the proposed café/restaurants. The new location shall be approved by both Telstra and Council. The applicant is advised to Contact Council’s Parks and Recreation Coordinator on 9399 0920 regarding the new location for the telephone booth.

 

86.       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.

 

87.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

90.       All areas of the retail/commercial premises, the entry foyer, access ramps and fire exits that are located below RL 6.65 (AHD), shall be constructed from materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation. Additionally, there shall be no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be adversely affected by stormwater located below RL 6.65 (AHD) in these areas.

 

91.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a restriction to user shall be attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 6.65 (AHD) within the front portion of the retail/commercial premises. 

 

Note: The applicant has submitted a draft 88B instrument (received 6 September 2002), which includes an appropriate restriction for the above requirements.

 

92.       Any part of the proposed building constructed below the flood level (i.e. below RL 6.35 (AHD)) shall be designed to structurally withstand the hydrostatic pressure from floodwater. Details of the proposed flood resistant doors and walls along the McKeon Street site frontage together with Structural Engineering certification confirming that all walls and doors constructed below the flood level have been designed to withstand the water pressures, shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

93.       All stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system in McKeon Street via a new double grated gully pit (constructed by Council or a Council approved contractor at the applicant’s expense). Details of the proposed gully pit shall be submitted to Council for approval and approved prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

Note:  Sketch details of a standard double grated gully pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer

 

94.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at or near the street boundary prior to site stormwater discharging by gravity to Council’s drainage system. It is noted that the silt arrestor pit shall be located in an open area near the property boundary where overflow can be directed to Council’s kerb and gutter.

 

The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

 

·    The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

95.       A reflux valve shall be provide over the pipe draining into the sediment/silt arrestor pit to prevent stormwater from McKeon Street and Council’s underground drainage system draining back into the subject development site.

 

96.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

97.       Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

98.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code. It is noted that a silt arrestor pit shall be provided prior to water discharging into any absorption pit/trench.

 

99.       Two covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

100.     All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

101.     As groundwater may be encountered within the proposed excavation, the basement carpark and\or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)   Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

102.     Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

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

 

103.     The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

104.     Prior to the accredited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development, the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the development.

 

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

 

105.     The landscaped areas shown on the plan number 02028BA 1 revision A, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property clearly identified as being removed, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.         The planting schedule shall list all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable. The plant schedule shall be amended to list only species capable of tolerating shade and salt winds.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 6 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

h.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

i.          The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species.

 

j.          Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

106.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

107.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the McKeon Street frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Parks & Recreation Co-ordinator – 9399 0920.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

All street furniture is required to be purchased through Council. Due to supply constraints, the applicant is required to place an order and pay for the required furniture three months prior to the estimated date for the completion of street frontage works.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property 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 checking 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.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $2,000 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the McKeon Street site frontage.

 

108.     To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

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

 

110.     Any detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of any detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

Tree Management

 

111.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $440.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 2 x 100 litre street trees at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Account Number 43459939 Activity Code R36 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for the works to be undertaken.

 

112.     Approval is granted for the removal of all trees located within the development site.

 

113.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $15,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.   The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.   Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

A          ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1        The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

 

            a)         Part E2                                   -           Smoke Hazard Management

            b)         Part E3                                   -           Lift Installations

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

d)         Part F5                                   -           Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

            Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

A2       In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 9 October 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

















 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 75/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

15A Wilson Street, MAROUBRA  2035

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0489/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 489/02 for Section 82A Review of Condition No. 5, which required the deletion of the proposed front carport and its replacement with an open paved car space only, 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 1 October 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

1 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0489/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of Determination

PROPERTY:

 15A Wilson Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr and Mrs Robinson

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 and, Dominic Sullivan.

 

Development Application No.489/2002 to carry out alterations and ground and first additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a front car port was approved under delegated authority on 1 July 2002, subject to Condition No.5 which required the deletion of the proposed front carport and its replacement with an open paved car space only. 

 

DA491/2002 for alterations and additions and a carport to the front of the adjoining semi detached dwelling at No.15B Wilson Street, a proposal symmetrical with that proposed for the subject site, was also approved under delegated authority subject to the same condition requiring the deletion of the carport.

 

The applicant has requested the deletion of the condition to permit the construction of the proposed carport.

 

The proposed car port does not meet the objectives, preferred solutions or performance requirements of DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it is site forward of the building line, will detract from the visual amenity, open form and character of the streetscape, and set an undesirable precedent for the siting of similar structures to the fronts of dwellings along this side of the street.

 

It is recommended that the previous decision to impose the condition be confirmed.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

Development Application No.489/2002 to carry out alterations and ground and first additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a new front car port was approved under delegated authority on 1 July 2002, subject to Condition No.5 which required the deletion of the proposed front carport and its replacement with an open paved car space only. 

 

The applicant has requested the deletion of the condition to permit the construction of the proposed carport.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a variety of free standing and semi-detached dwellings. The subject premises forms half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with No.15B Wilson Street and has an overall site area of 276m2 with dimensions of 5.815m x 45.265m. The subject premises are contained within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

There are no carport or garage structures sited forward of the building line along this side of the street. On the opposite side of the street may be found a limited number of existing single and double garage structures sited to the fronts of dwellings. These structures however are dated and were approved and constructed well prior to the adoption of DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development consent was issued for DA489/02 for the subject site and DA491/02 for No.15B Wilson Street with a condition requiring that works should be undertaken concurrently, and if one property chose not to proceed both consents would become invalid.

 

The condition for deletion of the carport forward of the building line was imposed for both applications, such that currently before Council is a section 96 application in respect of DA491/2002 for 15 B Wilson Street and a 82A review application in respect of DA489/2002 for No.15A Wilson Street, which seek to delete the condition for both properties.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

 The owners and occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the original development application on 14 June 2002. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received. 

 

Section 82A of the EPA Act does not contain any statutory requirement to notify any request for review of a determination or a condition/s of development consent as the application as the proposal remains unaltered.  Therefore, the current request has not been notified to adjoining property owners and occupiers.

 

6.    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

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

 

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

 

7.    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. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal: -

 

Residential

Clause

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

No, development will have an unacceptable impact on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

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).

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed carport will be located forward of the building line which is not consistent with the dominant front setbacks in the streetscape.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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.

The carport will breach the predominant building line.

 

 

The carport will detract from the open form and character of the streetscape.

 

The proposed carport will occupy approximately 70% of the site frontage.

 

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   Reasons for review

 

        The applicant has provided the following reasons for requesting the review: -

           

-       There is an existing carport to the adjoining half of our semi.

-       The adjoining dwelling is in a dilapidated state. The proposed building works are to be carried out simultaneously with the adjoining dwelling using a similar design, which can only improve the streetscape.

-       Most homes in the street and within the area have either a garage or carport in front of them of various designs.

-       The carport structure is an integral part of the design of the front entry and access into the semi and will be consistent with the adjoining semi.

-       By having a carport in the front of the dwelling, we are utilising the only available space. This not only keeps the car off the street, it provides a protected covered area for our children and our elderly family members when disembarking from the vehicle, in effect, avoiding accidents due to wet conditions.

-       Our home is situated on a T-section of the road and close to the beach; we get quite a few vehicles and even tourist buses through (more so in summer). The carport is protecting us from any dangerous situation occurring entering our home. (We have witnessed quite a few near collisions at this intersection). (We also feel that the way the insurance industry is going, we need to re-think the way we protect ourselves).

-       The carport might even reduce some of the noise.

-       The design of the carport is made to look open, does not block any one’s views and is an improvement to the existing home, therefore the streetscape can only be enhanced by the improvements.

 

8.2       Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

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

 

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

 

It should be noted that Council has passed a Draft Amendment to the DCP, which deleted performance requirement P2, which reads;

 

“ P2    -Not breach the predominant building alignment

-Not become an undesirable precedent”.

 

Also the following note is to be included in the DCP:

 

“Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape”.

 

The absence of the prescriptive Performance Requirement will create a greater degree of flexibility from the Preferred Solutions and will place more reliance on merit assessment of streetscape impact, and generally allow for hardstand areas in the front of the building. This Draft Amendment is currently on exhibition and therefore Council may include the draft amendment in the assessment criteria of this application.

 

The proposed carport will be located 1m from the front boundary and will have a length of 5.6m. It will occupy approximately 70% of the site’s street frontage. There are limited examples of garages sited forward of the building line within Wilson St. These have not been approved under the current DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and do not provide adequate precedent within the streetscape.

 

The objectives of the control are not achieved with this proposal, as the carport will detract from the visual amenity, open form and character of the streetscape, and set an undesirable precedent for the siting of similar structures to the fronts of dwellings in the street.

 

There is an existing old, metal framed and roofed carport to the front of the adjoining semi at No.15B Wilson Street however this structure is set back predominantly behind the front alignment of the dwelling and will be demolished as part of the construction of the proposed alterations and additions to that dwelling.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The application is not supported as the proposed car port does not meet the objectives and performance requirements for garages and carports of DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, will detract from the visual amenity, open form and character of the streetscape, and will set an undesirable precedent for the siting of similar structures to the fronts of dwellings in the street.

 

It is therefore recommended that the original decision to impose the condition be confirmed. 

                       

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That the original decision to impose condition no.5 on Development Consent No.489/2002 for No.15A Wilson Street, Maroubra, be confirmed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

-A4 configurations

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 76/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

15B Wilson Street, MAROUBRA   

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0491/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Section 96 Modification of Development Consent No. 491/02 to delete Condition No. 5 so as to allow construction of a proposed carport, 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 30 September 2002.

2.  Architectural plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

30 September, 2002

FILE NO:

D0491/2002/GA 'A'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification of Development Consent No. 491/02 to delete Condition No. 5

PROPERTY:

 15B Wilson Street Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 J & A Loyzaga

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The section 96 application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Bastic, Andrews and Sullivan.

 

Development Consent No. 491/2002 was issued on 3rd July 2002 for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling, subject to deletion of the proposed carport.

 

It is proposed to delete Condition No. 5 of Development Consent No. 491/02 to allow the construction of proposed carport.

 

The proposed car port does not meet the objectives, preferred solutions or performance requirements of DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it is sited forward of the building line, will detract from the visual amenity, open form and character of the streetscape, and set an undesirable precedent for the siting of similar structures to the fronts of dwellings along this side of the street.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    DETAILS OF THE CURRENT APPROVAL:

 

The application was approved on the 3rd July 2002 and related to alterations and additions including a first floor addition and carport to an existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

The application was lodged concurrently with no. 15 A Wilson Street, the adjoining attached dwelling, for a similar development proposal.

 

As part of the determination for 15B Wilson Street a condition of consent was imposed (Condition No. 5) requiring the deletion of the carport forward of the building line.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a variety of free standing and semi-detached dwellings. The subject premises forms half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and has an overall site area of 276m2 with dimensions of 5.815mx45.265m. There is no predominant pattern of structures forward of the building line in Wilson Street. The subject premises are situated within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

4.    DETAILS OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION

 

The proposed modification to the original development consent is for deletion of Condition No. 5 which deleted the proposed carport forward of the building line.

 

5.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Consent was issued for 491/02 and 489/02 with a condition requiring that works should be undertaken concurrently, and if one property chose not to proceed, both consents would become invalid.

 

The condition for deletion of the carport forward of the building line was imposed for both applications. A section 96 application and a section 82A review to delete the conditions for both development consents are currently with Council.

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. As there were no objections to the original proposal the proposed modification was not renotified.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

No, development will have an unacceptable impact on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

7.1  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).

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

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

 

Front Setback

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

 

 

 

The proposed car port will be located forward of the building line which is not consistent with the dominant front setbacks for the streetscape.

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

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

 

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.

The carport will breach the dominant building line.

 

The carport will detract from the character of the streetscape.

 

Approx. 70% of the frontage will contribute towards built upon area.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1   Substantially the same

The proposed modification to delete an imposed condition would result in a proposal, which is substantially the same as that approved.

 

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       Building setbacks     

 

The proposed carport will be located 1m off the front boundary and will have a length of 5.6m. There are a few examples of garages forward of the building line within Wilson Street, however these have not been approved under the current DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and do not provide adequate precedent within the streetscape.

 

The objectives of the control are not achieved with this proposal, as the carport will detract from the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

There is an existing carport to the front of the site however this is set behind the building line and will be demolished as part of the construction of the alterations and additions to the dwelling.  As such the siting and erection of a new carport structure must achieve Council’s current performance requirements.

 

9.2   Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

The preferred solution for driveways, car parking spaces and structures is that they do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site. The proposed carport would result in 70% of the site being dedicated to parking structures.

 

The performance requirement of the control is that the structure should not breach the predominant building line and will not set an undesirable precedent. It is also a requirement that the development not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape. It is considered that the proposal will not achieve the performance requirements, as the structure will dominate the streetscape, will result in an unacceptable precedent within the streetscape and to the pair of semi-detached dwellings and will breach the predominant building alignment of Wilson St.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification will have an unacceptable impact on the quality of the built environment of the surrounding locality.

 

The proposed carport does not meet the objectives and performance requirements for garages and carports of DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, will detract from the visual amenity, open form and character of the streetscape, and will set an undesirable precedent for the siting of similar structures to the fronts of dwellings in the street.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Condition No. 5 of Development Application No. 491/02’A’ for permission to construct a carport at property 15B Wilson Street Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed modification is not consistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.4 Building Setbacks contained within Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies where the front building setback should conform to the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback of the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed modification is not consistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials contained within Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies where buildings/structures are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street.

 

3.         The proposed modification is not consistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways contained within Development Control Plan Dwelling houses and Attached Dual Occupancies where carports are not to breach the predominant building alignment or to detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 77/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

4 Wilson Street, South Coogee

 

 

DATE:

15 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0500/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 500/2002 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new part two part three storey dwelling 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 3 October 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER  

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

3 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D0500/2002/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new part two part three storey dwelling

PROPERTY:

 4 Wilson St South Coogee

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 A Becerra

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic & Ted Seng.

 

The estimated cost of the development is $450, 000.

 

The primary issues of the application are whether the bulk and scale of the proposed building, its external wall height, and amenity impacts associated with the proposed roof top terrace satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and the erection of a new dwelling house including double garage and storage areas to the basement, habitable room to the ground floor, bedrooms to the first floor and a roof top terrace. The proposed dwelling house is of contemporary architectural style with a rendered and painted finish.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is regular in shape and has a total site area of 410.6sqm with a frontage to Wilson St of 12.190m. The site has a slope from west to east of approximately 1.84m.

 

The site currently contains a single storey detached weatherboard bungalow.  The streetscape of Wilson St is comprised of a number of architectural styles and varying sized developments. The traditional built form is for single storey detached cottages such as is currently occupying the site and some semi-detached dwellings. There are a number of more recently constructed dwelling houses, which are of double storey to maximise exposure of views to the north and east

 

The property to the south No. 2 Wilson is a large dwelling house constructed in 1980. Adjoining the property to the north is a two-storey dwelling house currently under construction. To the west of the site is a two-storey dwelling house.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 410/97 was approved under delegated authority on the 19 th February 1997 for the erection of a three storey dwelling similar in design and scale to that currently proposed. This application lapsed two years after the date of determination. The application was not commenced and as such the consent has now lapsed and a new application has been submitted for essentially the same building.

The application currently before Council is similar in design to that previously approved. However the previous application was assessed under Development Control Plan No. 4 which had different controls to that of the now applicable DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The approved FSR for the dwelling house was 0.96:1 with an overall height of 10.1m and included a roof top terrace similar to the currently proposed.

 

The proposed dwelling has a number of variations from the preferred solutions of DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, which need to be considered in the context of a performance assessment of this application.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submissions were received.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Drainage Comments

 

Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. 

The applicant has indicated that subsoil water will be drained to Council’s kerb and gutter.  This is not acceptable, as all subsoil water must be kept within the site.

Seepage water must not be drained from the site.  Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the Certifying Authority for the construction certificate

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed 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 dwelling, subject to conditions,  will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetic appearance of the foreshore area.

 

7.1  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).

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. 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

To be required as part of a condition of consent.

 

Yes, sufficient solar access provided to the proposed dwelling.

 

Yes, shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that due to the orientation of the site shadows cast will not have an unreasonable impact on adjoining properties.

 

Yes, primary open space and north facing habitable rooms will receive sunlight from after 9am.

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.

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

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

 

 

Yes water management is dealt with through conditions of consent imposed by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services.

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.

 

Yes, 41.9% of site will be landscaped.

 

Yes, approx 30% of the site will have a permeable treatment.

 

Yes, primary open space is provided to the rear of the site.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

No, 0.95:1 for the proposed dwelling as submitted.

 

0.89:1 with the deletion of the roof top terrace.

 

0.68:1 not including the storage areas and garage in the basement.

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.

 

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.

 

No- Maximum height of 9.4m.

 

 

Cut Exceeds 1m to achieve basement car park.

 

No, excavation proposed within 900mm of side boundary and 3m of rear boundary.

 

 

Length of second storey does not exceed 12m without a step.

 

 

View sharing acceptable level.

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Front setback generally complies with the dominant setback to Wilson St.

 

 

 

5.5m achieves preferred solution.

 

 

 

 

 

Achieved for ground floor northern and southern elevation.

 

1.5m and 3m setback not achieved for northern or southern elevations at first floor and roof top deck.

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.

 

 

No, privacy concerns for first floor balcony overlooking to the west of adjoining property.

 

 

 

There are sightlines into adjoining however these are resolved with the deletion of the roof top terrace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principles of safety and security have been achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

Proposed garage achieves the preferred solution for dimensions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The garage is located within the building footprint behind the building line.

 

Less than 35% of the site comprised of parking facilities.

 

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       Floor Area

 

The proposed development has a FSR of 0.95:1. The exceedence of the preferred solution of 0.6:1 is due to 108sqm contained within the basement and the roof top terrace. The areas, which are included in floor area pursuant to Council’s definition, are garage exceeding 40sqm, covered terrace areas, storage areas and a laundry. With the deletion of the roof top terrace the FSR reduces to 0.89:1.

 

Lowering the height of the basement will reduce the impact of the additional floor area in this section of the dwelling and result in an apparent FSR of 0.68:1. Whilst this is calculable floor area the actual impact from the additional floor area is minimal as it will be located in subfloor area below ground level. It is considered therefore that while numerically the FSR is high the actual impact is not significant given the comparative scale and bulk of the dwelling house immediately adjacent to the subject site.

 

The proposed amendments to the approved plan (via conditions) of deleting the roof top terrace and lowering the overall height of the development will result in a FSR that is closer to the preferred solution and will result in a development that has a bulk more consistent with the surrounding locality thereby achieving the performance requirements of the control.

 

8.1.1    Building setbacks

 

The side setbacks do not achieve the preferred solution for the ground and first floors for the northern and the southern elevation. The northern elevation has a minimum setback of 1.2m for the first floor and roof top terrace which should be setback 1500mm and 3m respectively. The southern elevation has a dimensioned setback of 900mm however when scaled off the plans it is 500mm for all floors, this setback does not achieve the preferred solution. A condition has been imposed requiring the setback to be 900mm to the southern boundary.

 

The performance requirements for side setbacks are that adequate access to natural light, solar access and consistent pattern of setback within the streetscape are achieved, it is considered that the proposed setbacks for both elevations do achieve a reasonable level of solar access and that the dwelling being highly articulated will ensure there is no adverse impact to the quality of the built form and the character of the streetscape. The variation from the preferred solutions is considered acceptable.

 

8.2       Height

 

The external wall height for the development exceeds the preferred solution of 7m by some 2.5m at the highest point. It is considered that this is an unacceptable variation given that the additional height is for a terrace roof area, which will result visually in a fourth storey to the dwelling. Assessed in conjunction with the variation in the FSR it is considered that deleting this roof terrace and associated access structures that the height of the development will be substantially reduced such that the bulk and scale of the development will be consistent with the surrounding locality. However, the height of the dwelling after the roof terrace is deleted will be 8m, which still exceeds the preferred solution. It is considered that the height of the development could be reduced through the lowering of floor to ceiling heights and lowering the basement such that the height of the development will be compatible with the existing character of the locality and therefore achieve the performance requirements. The floor to ceiling heights will be conditioned to be 2.7m for the ground and first floor and the basement to be entirely contained within the ground.

 

8.3       Visual and acoustic privacy

 

It is considered that the primary concern for overlooking into adjoining properties is from the roof terrace area and the first floor balcony to the rear. It is considered that with the deletion of the roof terrace and the erection of a privacy screening to the rear balcony that overlooking will be minimal and satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP.

 

8.4       Foreshore Development

 

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area pursuant to Clause 29 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The objectives of this control are to protect the aesthetic appearance of foreshore areas and that building form, materials and finishes are sympathetic to surrounding natural and built environment. It is considered that the proposed dwelling will be consistent with the surrounding character of the built and natural environment and that the aesthetic appearance of the dwelling will not detract from the quality of the foreshore area.

 

It is considered that the deletion of the terraced roof area will result in a more appropriate scale of development and view sharing by properties to the west of the subject site.  There is no direct loss of views identified for any property as a result of this development however reducing the height of the dwelling will allow for future view sharing for the single storey dwellings to the rear as they are redeveloped.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed dwelling does not achieve a number of the preferred solutions contained within the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. It is considered that on merit and with the deletion of the roof top terrace and lowering at the height of the building, the proposed development achieves the performance requirements of the DCP and will not have an adverse impact on the quality of the streetscape, amenity of surrounding properties and the aesthetic appearance of the Foreshore area.

 

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 500/02 for Demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new part two part three storey dwelling at 4 Wilson St South Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 2002 01/DA 01, 02/DA 02, DA 03, DA 04, DA 05, DA 07, DA 08 dated March 2002 and received by Council on 27 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:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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.         A privacy screen having a minimum height of 1.8m is to be provided to the western perimeter of the first floor rear balcony. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

3.         The proposed lift to the dwelling house shall be deleted from the plans. Details of the amended floor plans shall be submitted as part of the application for a construction certificate.

 

4.         The height of the development shall be reduced to provide for a dwelling house more in keeping with existing character of the streetscape by constructing the basement wholly within existing ground level  and reducing the floor to ceiling height to 2.7m for the ground and first floor levels. Amended plans are to be submitted showing these changes as part of the application for a construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

6.         The southern wall of the building is to be located not less than:-

 

a)         900mm from the boundary.

 

7.         Landscaping shall be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

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

 

9.         The roof terrace and associated structures are to be deleted from the plans to reduce the overall height and the floor area of the dwelling. Amended plans are to be submitted as part of the application for construction certificate.

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS & FIRE SAFETY:

 

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

 

10.       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.

 

11.       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.

 

STRUCTURAL:

 

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

 

12.       Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

13.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:

 

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

 

14.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

15.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       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.

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

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

 

(a)        Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

21.       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. 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.

 

22.       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. 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 and debris at all times.

 

23.       Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

24.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

26.       Construct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

27.       Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

31.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level)  issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

32.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $201.00 calculated at $16.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

33.       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.

34.       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.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

35.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the Certifying Authority for the construction certificate

 

36.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system/absorption system. The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

 

·    The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

38.       The applicant shall submit payment of $86.00 to Council

 

a)         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree at the completion of all works.

 

The contribution shall be paid to the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for the works to be undertaken.

 

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.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONEMTNAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 






 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 78/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed aged care facility for Montefiorre Jewish Home – 100-120 King Street, Randwick.  

 

 

DATE:

10 October, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0551/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $49,960,000.

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing buildings and erection of an aged care facility containing 277 aged care beds, synagogue function room, day care centre and parking for 136 vehicles comprising Stage 1 and part Stage 2 of the approved Master Plan for the subject site.

 

The proposal is permissible in the existing Residential 2B and Residential 2C zones applicable to the subject site under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal complies with all the statutory controls contained in State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 5 with the exception of height and density. The variations in height and density have been assessed and found to be acceptable especially in that these variations will not give rise to any detrimental impacts on the amenity of surrounding residential properties nor result in a development that would be inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape.

 

The proposal will also increase the residential dwelling stock for the aged and disabled significantly whilst providing support services on-site including a day-care centre and professional medical, dental and associated services.  It will complement the surrounding residential context in terms of design, height, bulk and scale, and  would have acceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish existing buildings that are formerly part of the Randwick Bus Depot and erect an aged care facility comprising Stage 1 and part Stage 2 of the approved Master Plan for the subject site. Specifically, the proposal will provide the following:

 

277 aged care beds

244 seat synagogue

825 sqm day care centre

330 sqm function room

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

Administrative facilities

Basement car park containing 136 vehicles

 

The proposed building layout will essential comprise a quadrangle arrangement in the northern section having frontage to Govett Lane and Dangar Street, linked on the southern side to a wing section extending southwards to King Street.  The proposed building will have the following uses in each level:

 

Level 1 (Basement level in the north at Govett Lane)

§ 54 carparking spaces

§ kitchen

§ laundry services

§ bulk storage

 

Level 2 (Ground level at King Street)

§ 82 carparking spaces

§ 30 high care dementia beds

§ associated services and facilities

§ associated service functions

§ hydrotheraphy pool

 

Level 3 (Ground level at Dangar Street)

§ 71 low care beds located to the north of the facility

§ associated services and facilities

§ Administration centre

§ Wellness centre (ie., doctor suites, dentist and professional therapists)

§ Day-care centre

§ Function room

§ Synagogue

 

Level 4

§ 118 high care beds

§ associated services and facilities

 

Level 5

§ 58 low care beds

§ associated services and facilities

 

Access will be provided via Dangar Street and King Street with these access points linked by an internal service road serving the proposed on-site carparks and service facilities. Under the proposal, carparking will be provided in two basement carparks, one below the aged care section close to Govett Lane, and the other below the retail/function room component towards Dangar Street.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site comprises 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 subject site 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.         SITE HISTORY

 

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 and 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

 

The Home has since advised that it did not proceed with the purchase of Lot 201 and submitted an amended Master Plan for a similar aged-care housing development on Lot 202 only. This amended Master Plan was adopted by Council at the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting on 13 August 2002. 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

 

The amended Master Plan deletes a number of self-care units along King Street that were originally proposed under the earlier adopted Master Plan as a result of the deletion of Lot 201 from the proposal. In addition, the size of the synagogue and day care centre has been reduced under the amended Master Plan.

 

The amended Master Plan 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 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.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to the Precinct Committee in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

Mr Richard F. Harvey, Executive Committee , 1/89-91 Dangar Street,

S & F Joseph, 28 Dangar Street

            Ms Kathleen Eagar, Member of Randwick North , 11/2 Prince Street,

Andrew Lee, Member of Randwick North  Executive, 93 King Street

H Boot, Memberr RNRZ , 71 King Street,

Michael & Anna Drage,  C/- 56 Waterloo Street, SURRY HILLS

Loretta Dixon and John Ewart, Executive Member of RNRZ, 51 Dangar Street

Ross Scott, Executive Committee RNRZ, 56 Wentworth Street, 

Rosemary Neill, Member of RNRZ , 35 Dangar Street,

Ms Louise Ryan , Convenor (RNRZ), 63 Dangar Street

Ms Lesley Periera , 9 Monmouth Street

Alison Morris & John Brooks, 17 Dangar Street

Ms Kathryn Morris, 3 Monmouth Street

Mr John Periera, 2 Govett Street,

Mr James A O'Farrel AM, Chairperson Randwick/Centennial Park Precinct Ctte

D H Clifford, Supporter of RNRZ, 22 Dangar Street,

Joan Hansen, Randwick North Responsible Zoning (RNRZ), 9 Mort Street

D Hetherington, Randwick North Responsible Zoning (RNRZ), 27 Dangar Street

 Edward Au-Yong B.Com M.Co, 57 Dangar Street

            R & T Laurendet, 20 Dangar Street

            A & H Leondiou, RNRZ Supporter, 59 Dangar Street,

 

5.1       Objections

 

Twenty-one submissions were received objecting to the proposed development. The relevant issues raised in the submissions are set out below.

 

§ Setbacks to King Street, Dangar Street and Govett Lane are inadequate and inconsistent with the adopted Master Plan

 

§ Proposed development must not exceed the maximum building height contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

§ Angle parking along Dangar Street and King Street will be dangerous to cyclists and detracts from Heritage Conservation area.

 

§ Loss of carparking in Dangar Street due to proposed layback.

 

§ Traffic associated with the existing Jewish preschool is hazardous and should be accommodated in the development.

 

§ Fencing must not be solid.

 

§ Building height should not exceed Randwick LEP 1998.

 

§ Use of function room will create noise.

 

§ Preconstruction dilapidation reports are required for all surrounding residents.

 

§ The cumulative impact of traffic from two other adjoining proposed developments have not been taken into account.

 

§ Height of the proposed development is unclear.

 

§ Dangar Street should not take the bulk of entry and exit traffic.

 

§ The proposed plaza area should not be rezoned 2C.

 

§ No recycling of concrete should be allowed on site as this will create dust hazard.

 

§ Construction traffic should be via King Street not Dangar Street.

 

§ Inadequate display of materials in Council’s offices.

 

§ Notification of amended Master Plan

 

5.2       Support

 

No letter in support of the application was received.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1       Building Issues
 

No objections are raised to the application in relation to building issues subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

6.2       Environmental Health Issues

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer advises as follows:

 

Land Contamination

 

A Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Statement have been received and noted. 

 

As stated by the Environmental Consultant, The Site Audit Statement concludes that this site is currently not suitable for any beneficial use due to contamination.

 

As per the Site Auditor recommendation a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is to be prepared and approved by a site auditor, and a Site Audit Statement (SAS) is required to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to building works commencing.

 

The RAP is to be received and accepted by the Council prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

 

Noise

 

An acoustic report has been prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd, who are members of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants.

 

The report assessed the potential noise impact on the adjacent residential areas and noise ingress to the site.

 

A final acoustical report will be required, prior to occupation of the site as the final plant selections have not been finalised.

 

The consultant states,

 

“Carparking will be predominantly under the buildings and noise from this source will meet the sleep arousal night time noise goals.  LAmax noise levels from the closest small areas of surface carparking may marginally exceed the noise goals.  These noise levels are generally 10dBA lower than existing LAmax levels from traffic on King Street and Dangar Street and similar to existing LAmax levels on Govett Lane.  Their impact will therefore be negligible when the small number of night time car park movements are taken into account.”

 

It is considered that the hours of use for the function room should be restricted where possible.

 

Food Safety

 

No details have been provided in relation to food outlets in the public plaza and the fitout of kitchens to the development.

 

Information is to be provided with the Construction Certificate in relation to the kitchen fitouts and a separate Development Application for proposed food premises (associated with the Public Plaza)”

 

6.3       Landscape Issues

 

Council Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“There are several trees, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works. All of these trees are numbered and listed on the existing tree schedule shown on the Tree Survey Plan, number DA-L01, dated 12 June 2002.

 

Permission should be granted for those trees listed for removal, being trees 1-4, 6, 29-37 and 43-52.

 

Trees numbered 5, 7-28, 38-42 and 53-54 are to be retained and protected as part of this application.”

 

6.4         Drainage Issues

 

Council Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The following stormwater drainage culverts (and easements) are located adjacent to or through this development site:-

 

1.   There is a 600 mm diameter stormwater pipeline that drains the intersection of King and Church Streets. This pipeline discharges into a 750 mm pipeline (and 1200 mm diameter pipeline) that burdens the development site.

 

Note that “an easement to drain water over existing line of pipes (approx. position)” has been created over the development site for the 750 mm and 1200 mm diameter pipelines.

 

2.   There is a 450 mm diameter stormwater pipeline located adjacent to the south eastern boundary of the development site in King Street. The 450 mm diameter stormwater pipeline presently discharges via a converter to the northern side kerb and gutter in King Street (converter is opposite to 91-93 King Street).

 

Notes

 

a.   there are two 375 mm diameter stormwater  pipelines that discharge to this 450 mm diameter pipeline. They are:-

 

i.   a 375mm diameter pipeline that drains the low point adjacent to the site in Dangar Street.

 

ii.  a 375 mm diameter pipeline that drains the north eastern kerb return of the Danger and King Street intersection.

 

b.   there is a 525mm diameter pipeline that is parallel to the above mentioned 450 mm diameter stormwater pipeline. Preliminary investigations indicate that this pipeline appears to be abandoned.

 

3.   The development site is burdened by an easement to drain water 5 wide. 

 

Note that this easement was created for the overland flow of stormwater from the low point adjacent to this development site in Danger Street (there is no stormwater  pipeline within this easement)

 

4.   There is a 900 mm diameter pipeline located along the eastern side of Dangar Street that drains to a 1.143 x 1.066 box culvert within Govett Lane.

 

Notes:-

 

a.   This pipeline drains the intersection of King Street and Barden Lane. Overflow from this intersection will be partly directed down King Street and to the localised low point adjacent to the development site in Dangar Street.

 

b.   There is a localised low point adjacent to the development site in Govett Lane. Preliminary investigations indicate that the above 1.143 x 1.066 box culvert has a capacity of draining a 1 in 5 year storm. For storms greater than 1 in 5 years occurrence, stormwater will overflow from this low point and drain into the development site (lot 202) and the adjacent site (lot 201) and generally infiltrate to ground

 

c.   Lots (lots 201 and 202) formed part of the original Randwick bus depot site that was subdivided in 1998.  The overland flow described above, drained through the original Bus Depot site along hard paved surfaces to King Street. The overland flow presently infiltrates to ground through various areas that were excavated and /or subject to land farming (that resulted from that subdivision)

 

To redevelop this site the applicant has proposed to:-

 

1.   relocate and upgrade the existing 750 mm and 1200 mm diameter pipelines that burden the site.

 

2.   construct a stormwater culvert from the low point in Dangar Street to discharge into the kerb and gutter in King Street, near the western boundary of the site (downstream of the proposed driveway). This pipeline has been:-

 

a.   designed to drain the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

b.   located partially along the site’s eastern and southern perimeters and Council’s footpath area. 

 

3.   construct an aqueduct (open box culvert that is supported by columns or a retaining wall) system to drain the overflow from the low point in Govett Lane to approximately 70 metres within the development site.

 

This aqueduct is proposed to be located adjacent to the University Building with the invert level (or floor level if it is used as a pathway through the site) approximately: -

 

a.   4 metres above the existing surface level at Govett Lane.

 

b.   3 metres above the existing surface level adjacent to the existing 750 mm diameter pipeline that burdens the site.

 

Notes:-

 

i. The Master Plan for the adjacent development site in Lot 201 King Street has included a concept for draining this overland flow from where this aqueduct ends in lot 202 and discharge this stormwater to King Street.

 

ii.      An easement for overland flow purposes will be required to be created over the proposed overland flow (aqueduct) structure. The description of the easement will be required to be worded so that the structure is repaired and maintained by the owner/s of Lot 202 King Street.

 

iii.     The aqueduct should be located outside the 2 metre wide easement for support located around the University building

 

iv.     The DEPCD is requested to comment on whether this structure would be acceptable (considering the height above the existing surface levels).

 

v.      The applicant (and the adjacent developer in Lot 201 King Street) have verbally indicated that they intend to investigate other avenues for draining this overland flow that would be acceptable to Council. Such investigations may include upgrading the Govett Lane box culvert to its outlet in Centennial Park.

 

As the applicant has nominated Council as the Certifying Authority in writing, then the final design, specifications and details for the Council stormwater culverts and other infrastructure could be submitted and approved of by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to any building works being constructed on the development site”.

 

6.5       Waste Management

 

Council Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services raises no objections to the applicant’s advice that a Waste Management Plan detailing the proposed method of storage and collection of all waste will be submitted to Council for approval prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

6.6       Traffic/Parking Issues

 

Council Traffic Engineer advises as follows:

 

“The total on site parking provided is 136 spaces, a 21 space shortfall from Council’s DCP-Parking. These car parks are located in the building adjacent to Govett Lane and under the building near the Plaza.      

 

The shortfall is acceptable as a large proportion of the congregation at the synagogue will be residents of the development and the larger congregations which will occur on the weekends will use the day care centre parking which totals 27 spaces. The traffic report states that people using the daycare centre will be brought by minibus or dropped off. The proposal is only acceptable if the day care centre does not operate on weekends.

 

The key intersections surrounding the development have been assessed using the INTANAL intersection program and indicate that no significant impact occurs  as a result of the development and that they operate a satisfactory Level of Service. The traffic generated by the development is estimated by the traffic consultant at some 70 vehicles/hr peak hour based on a Montefiore aged care facility at Hunters Hill which comprises of some 369 residential care beds, daycare centre and synagogue. The traffic generated by the proposed development would be in the same magnitude. This  extra traffic can be accommodated by the surrounding road network.

 

The Port Cochere for the day care centre must be made a one way eastbound movement to remove conflict points.

 

Ramp grades into the parking areas are not provided on the plans.

 

The Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) considered the development at its meeting held on Wednesday 7th August 2002 and provided the following written comments:

 

Comments raised from the NSW Police and RTA were discussed at the meeting, additionally Council’s Traffic Management conditions on the Masterplan for this site were also discussed.

 

Listed below are the comments discussed at the meeting:

 

·    Traffic calming devices should be installed along King Street and Dangar Street, including consideration of the following:

·    The installation of a roundabout at the King Street/Dangar Street intersection.

·    Definition of  parking lanes on Dangar Street along the frontage of the property by linemarking to restrict traffic to one lane in each direction. This must cater for cyclists , as Dangar Street is a designated cycle path.

·    The installation of pedestrian refuges on King Street to improve pedestrian access to the site.

·    Any traffic calming devices should be designed in consultation with Council’s Local Traffic Committee.

·    “No Stopping” restrictions should be imposed at least 6 metres either side of the proposed access locations to enable adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the site. This should be done in consultation with Council’s Local Traffic Committee.

·    Dedication of frontage on King Street in front of the retail area to enable sufficient road width to cater for angled parking.

·    It is noted that Stage 1 includes a temporary road access from King Street to the development. The committee was advised that the purposes of this road was to give access to the Stage 1 development  and that the position of the King  Street access may be reviewed with Stage 2 of the development, this should be done in accordance with relevant DCP.

·    Parking provisions, internal access driveway widths and turning paths should be to Council’s satisfaction.

·    All works and regulatory signposting associated with the development is to be at no cost to RTA or Council.

 

In regards to both developments it was indicated that consultation is taking place in regards to the traffic calming devices suggested and preliminary sketches of these ideas have been drawn up.

 

In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 11 it is essential that a copy of Council’s determination on the proposal (conditions of consent if approved) is forwarded to the Committee at the same time as it is sent to the developer. 

 

The Police provided the following written comments:

 

“The following comments are made in respect of a Development Application prepared by Flower and Samios Pty Ltd, Architects for a proposal by the Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home, Randwick to construct a Community Aged Care Campus upon Lot 202 King Street, Randwick. Comments also address a Development Application lodged by APT Peddle Thorp for a proposed Residential Development upon Lot 201 King Street Randwick.  This site was the subject to comment on a previous Master plan.

 

Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes and Masson Wilson Twiney Pty Ltd have not addressed the transport issues in line with Randwick City Councils, Development Control Plan (Parking) with parking provisions and internal access and circulation complying with AS 2890.1-1993 instead.

 

The Police Service raises no objection in principle to the proposed development however considers parking provisions and internal access should be addressed in line with Randwick City Councils, DCP (Parking).

 

In line with issues raised at the Master plan stage a traffic study has been conducted to address external access and circulation with a number of traffic facilities being identified to maintain current residential amenity along with pedestrian and vehicular safety in this area.

 

A meeting was held on 26th August 2002 between Council traffic engineers and the traffic consultant to discuss concerns/clarification of matters. A written response was received from Masson Wilson Twiney Consultants as follows:

 

“Following our recent meeting we confirm the points that were made concerning additional information on traffic arrangements.

 

1.   Splay on Site Access

 

·    We agree the architectural drawings do not show standard driveway splays. We suggest a condition requiring Council Standard Splays

 

2.   Traffic Calming in King/Dangar Street

 

·    A sketch arrangement for traffic management in the area was discussed and agreed and includes:

·    Roundabout at King/Dangar

·    45 degree angle parking on the northern side of King Street

·    Pedestrian refuge in King Street

·    Pram ramps at King/Dangar roundabout splitter islands

 

·    It may be noted that there is currently angle parking on the north side of King Street at the TAFE campus

 

·    Provision of angle parking would increase on-street parking supply by some 70% as well as help calm traffic speeds along King Street.

 

·    Sketch arrangements are being drawn up and will be presented to Council in  a few days.

 

3.   No Stopping

 

·    We agree that there should be no stopping for 6 metres either side of proposed access locations.

 

4.   Road Width and Dedication

 

·    We consider that King Street is wide enough for the provision of 45 degree parking on one side.

 

5.   Widths of Internal Roadways

 

·    Following our discussion we agree that the proposed Dangar Street access should be two way and six metres in width.

 

·    It is proposed that there be no on street parking within the internal road network apart from the 90 degree parking located near the main reception area.

 

6.   Ramp Details

 

·    We suggest a condition requiring car parking layout to meet Australian Standard requirements.

 

·    It may be noted that the day care centre is proposed to be open during the day (10am-4pm) on weekdays and therefore its usage would not coincide with the likely peak usage of the Synagogue (Saturday).

 

·    We trust this clarifies the situation. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.”

 

It is recommended that the Director of Planning and Community Development be advised that:

 

1.   The parking proposed for the components of the development do not comply with Council’s DCP- Parking. The number of spaces required is 157 spaces and 136 spaces are provided hence a shortfall of 21 spaces. The parking proposed  is considered acceptable provided that the day care centre does not operate on weekends when the synagogue demand can utilise the parking provided for the day care centre staff parking.

 

2.   On street  traffic calming measures comprising of the following components be installed at no cost to Council with detailed designs of all on road traffic facilities to be submitted to The Local Traffic Committee for approval prior to construction

 

·    A roundabout at the King Street/Dangar Street intersection.

 

·    Definition of a parking lane on Dangar Street along the full frontage of the property by line marking to restrict traffic to one lane in each direction. This must cater for cyclists, as Dangar Street is a designated cycle path.

 

·    The installation of a pedestrian refuge on King Street.

 

·    Provision of 45 degree angled parking and associated kerb blisters in King Street along the frontage of the development.

 

3.   A 6 metre length of no stopping is required on each side of the access points to improve sight distance for exiting vehicles.

 

4.   The access road from Dangar Street needs to be widened to 6.0metres to provide sufficient width for two way traffic flow.

 

5.   The kerb returns at the access locations in Dangar Street and King Street are to be designed to Council requirements.

 

6.   To prevent on street parking from occurring  ‘No Parking’ signposting should be installed on the access roads.

 

7.   The ramp grades have not been indicated on the plans. All ramps should be designed in accordance with Australian Standard Requirements.

 

8.   The Day Care Centre must not operate on weekends when peak Synagogue peak usage occurs.

 

9.   The Port Cochere for the Day Care Centre must be signposted and linemarked as a one-way eastbound movement.

 

10. Dedication of frontage on Dangar Street at the Synagogue and Function Room indented bay to enable sufficient road width and footpath.    

 

11. All costs associated with the above signposting provision and changes, including any proposed civil works on Council’s roads be met by the applicant.”

 

6.7       Heritage Issues

 

The Heritage Planner advises that appropriate documentation in relation to the Institute Building was submitted with the Master Plan application and these documents were assessed at the Master Plan stage. In the assessment, the information provided in support of the demolition of the Institute Building was found to meet the requirements contained in the NSW Heritage Manual for Statements of Heritage Impact for the Demolition of Heritage Building and Structures. In particular, all options for retention and adaptive re-use of the building have been explored. In this regard, the information provided sufficiently indicated that the retention of the fabric of the building and its structural defects required repair works which would considerably add to the overall cost of the project. Approval was granted for 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. These information and details have been provided with the current application and have been assessed and found to be acceptable.  

 

6.8       Sydney Regional Development and Advisory Committee (SRDAC)

 

The application was referred to the SRDAC on 16 July 2002 pursuant to SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Development. In response, the SRDAC has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the following:

 

§ The installation of traffic calming devices along King Street and Dangar Street.

§ The installation of “No Stopping” restrictions at least 6m either side of the proposed access locations to enable adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the site in consultation with Council’s Local Traffic Committee.

§ Dedication of frontage to King Street in front of the retail area to enable sufficient road width to cater for angled parking.

§ The position of the King Street access to be reviewed with the Stage 2 development.

§ Parking provisions, internal access, driveway widths and turning paths should be to Council’s satisfaction.

§ All works and regulatory sign-posting associated with the development is to be at no cost to RTA or Council.

 

An appropriate condition will be applied requiring implementation of these recommended measures.

 

7.         MASTERPLAN REQUIREMENTS:

 

A Master Plan for aged care housing was adopted by Council on 10 July 2001 subject to a number of variations and requirements for submission of future development applications. An amended Master Plan incorporating all the required variations was submitted together with the current development application and adopted by Council on 13 August 2002.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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. The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent in both zones. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal.

 

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

 

31 – Landscape Area

 

Min. 50 % of site area for uses other than a dwelling house in both 2B and 2C zones.

 

The proposal provides landscape area comprising 54 % of site area.

 

Yes.

 

32 – FSR

 

 

 

 

Max. FSR for Zone 2B = 0.65:1

 

Max. FSR for Zone 2C = 0.9 :1 or 0.65:1 for sites less than 700 sqm.

 

 

FSR 0.9 : 1 for current proposal.

Max FSR  of 1.2:1 for overall proposal (ie., Stage 1 and Stage 2)

 

No see Section 10.1.2.2 below.

 

 

33 – Building Height

 

Max building height for Zone 2B = 9.5m

 

Max building height for Zone 2C = 12m

 

Max. height = 12.4m.

 

No see Section 10.1.2.1 below.

 

43 – Heritage Item or Conservation Area

 

Submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment for Council’s consideration.

 

Heritage impact assessment was submitted with the Master Plan and found to meet documentation requirements for demolition heritage buildings.

 

Yes – see Section 6.7 above.

 

8.2       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 – Housing for Older People or People with a Disability

 

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. SEPP 5 contains provisions which prevent Council from refusing a SEPP 5 application on the grounds of a number of criteria, which are detailed as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEPP No 5

 

 

 

Clause

 

Required

 

Proposed

 

Complies Yes/No

 

14(a) Height

 

8m or less in height

 

Maximum 12.4m to pitch of roof on the building fronting Govett Lane.

 

 

 

No (see Section 10.1.2 below)

 

14(b) Density

 

FSR 0.5:1 or less, or 0.75 or less if located within 400 m of public transport node

 

FSR 0.9 : 1 for current proposal.

Max FSR  of 1.2:1 for overall proposal (ie., Stage 1 and Stage 2)

 

 

 

No (see Section 10.1.2 below)

 

14(c) Landscaped area

 

35sqm per dwelling and/or 25 sqm5per hostel or residential care facility bed ie., 9,025 sqm in total (35 sqm x 60 self-care units plus 25 sqm x 277 aged care beds).

 

The proposal provides for a total of 16,082 sqm of landscaped area.

 

Yes

 

14 (d) Car Parking

 

1 parking space for each 10 beds (the proposed 277 aged care beds will require 27.7 car spaces)

 

1 parking space for each 2 persons employed in the proposed development on duty at any one time.

 

 

1 parking space suitable for an ambulance. 

 

The proposal will provide a total of 28 car spaces.

 

 

The proposal will have a total of 144 staff (90 for the aged care facility and 54 for the day care centre and administration) providing in total 72 carspace.

 

1 parking space for an ambulance will be available on site. 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

In addition, Clause 13 of SEPP 5 also requires that 50% of the dwellings be provided with wheel chair access to a public road, internal road or a driveway accessible to all residents, and that 10% of dwellings have wheel chair access to all essential areas. The proposal is for aged care beds and not individual dwellings per se. Notwithstanding this, all aged care bed units will be accessible by wheelchair access to internal roads and essential areas.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

9.1       Development Control Plan  – Car Parking

 

The carparking requirements for aged care housing are similar to those required under SEPP 5.

 

Compliance with DCP – Parking

 

USE

REQUIRED

PROPOSED

Aged care facility

Same as SEPP 5  ie., 1 parking space for each 10 beds (the proposed 277 aged care beds will require 27.7 car spaces)

 

1 parking space for each 2 persons employed in the proposed development on duty at any one time.

101 car spaces comprising 28 visitor spaces and 72 staff spaces.

Synagogue

1 space per 20 sqm gross floor area

500 sqm gross floor area = 25 car spaces (demand will only be on Saturdays and will utilise spaces allocated to day care/administration staff).

Wellness centre

1 space per 25 sqm gross floor area

350 sqm gross floor area = 14 car spaces

Function Room

As a place of assembly the required carparking will be based on a transport survey.

A traffic/transport study has been submitted indicating that the function room will require 18 car spaces.

TOTAL

157

136

 

The proposal will require a total of 157 car spaces. The proposal will provide 136 basement car spaces which, whilst not complying with the DCP requirement, will be adequate as the Synagogue can utilise the day-care centre and administration carparking spaces on Saturdays. A condition will be applied requiring the day-care centre not to operate on weekends to ensure the availability of carparking for Synagogue users. 

 

9.2       Development Control Plan No. 18 – Corner of King and Dangar Streets Randwick

 

The table below assesses the proposed developments against relevant requirements of DCP No. 18.

 

Required

Provided / Proposed

Y / N

1.  Land subdivision should be in the form of Community Title.

1.  proposal will not involve sub-division of the land but rather retention of the existing Torrens title ownership with the Montefiore Homes.

N.A.

2.  Minimum site area for dwellings should be in accordance with Council’s General Policy for the Control of Siting and Erection of Residential Flat Buildings and the Building Code of Australia.

The sub-division requirements of Council’s General Policy for the Control of Siting and Erection of Residential Flat Buildings and the Building Code of Australia are no longer applicable controls for allotment sizes having been superseded by the provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998. Furthermore, the proposal will not involve any sub-division of individual residential allotments. 

 

N.A.

3.  Site frontage should be designed such that dwelling house development is required along Dangar Street; Govett Lane should not be made into a main street frontage for new development; and ground levels along King Street should be utilised to provide basement carparking for residential flat buildings.

3.  The proposal is for an aged care housing development and not dwelling house or residential flat development.

N.A.

4.  Min 6m front building line for residential development to any existing residential road.

 

Side and rear setbacks to comply with SEPP 20 – Minimum Standards for Residential Flat Buildings”

 

4.  The proposal provides for side and rear setbacks consistent with adopted Master Plan which exceeds the requirements of DCP No. 18. SEPP 20 has been repealed.

N.A

5.  Public open space should be provided in accordance with Section 94 plan.

5.  Section 94 contributions are not applicable for this Application.

N.A

6.  Landscape plans should be provided at development application stage to ensure high standards.

6.  A Landscape plan has been submitted with the development application. 

Yes

7.  At cross-site link be provided between King Street and Govett Lane to facilitate access to Centennial Park.

7.  A pedestrian cross-site pathway will be required to be provided along the western boundary of the subject site.

Yes

8.  A Traffic Management Plan must be prepared for proposals in the subject site covered by the DCP.

8.   A Traffic Report has been provided by with the development application.

Yes

8.  Developer to provide road widening of 2m in Govett Lane.

11.  Council will no longer require the widening of Govett Lane as determined in the adopted Master Plan.

N.A.

 

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     Statutory Controls

 

10.1.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The proposal is permissible under the Residential 2B and Residential 2C zoning in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

10.1.2  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5

 

The proposal complies with the all the requirements of SEPP 5 with the exception of the controls relating to height and density which are addressed below.

 

10.1.2.1Height

 

SEPP states that a consent authority cannot refuse a SEPP 5 application if the proposed buildings are 8m or less in height. The maximum height of the proposed development will be 12.4m to the pitching point of the roof on the proposed building fronting Govett Lane (RL 53.7). This height is commensurate with the proposed three storey height (above street level) under the adopted Master Plan as amended. The variation in height from that required under SEPP 5 is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposed building fronting Govett Lane will not result in any overshadowing of existing adjoining properties as it is located on the southern side of existing residential properties on Govett Lane.

 

§ The proposed building fronting Govett Lane is not considered to have a bulk and scale that will be dominant or overbearing especially given that it will have a generous setback of 15m and will be built on a level below the level of Govett Lane

 

§ The proposed building fronting Govett Lane will not be out of character with the existing streetscape of Govett Lane.

 

§ The storey height of the proposed building is consistent with the adopted Master Plan as amended. 

 

10.1.2.2Density

 

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 0.5:1 or less, or 0.75 or less if the facility is within 400m of a public transport facility. The proposal will have an FSR of 0.9 :1 and the overall development comprising Stage 1 and Stage 2 will have a maximum FSR of 1.2:1. These FSRs are based on the following floor areas:

 

§ 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 proposed FSR is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ the overall development will be low to medium scale in nature and is 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

 

§ the proposal is not considered to give rise to detrimental amenity impacts on existing surrounding residential developments in terms of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of views (see section 10.6 below)

 

§ The proposed FSR is consistent with the FSR proposed under the adopted Master Plan as amended.

 

§ The proposal will allow for adequate solar access and privacy requirements both internally and externally.

 

§ 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).

 

10.1.3  Amended Master Plan

 

The amended Master Plan was adopted on 27 August 2002 subject to a number of matters being addressed in subsequent development applications for the subject site. All these matters have been addressed in the current development application with the exception of the following:

 

§ Compliance with Council’s DCP – Parking

 

The proposal has a shortfall of 21 carparking spaces. However, as discussed in Section 10.2.2 below, the shortfall is acceptable as the shortfall relates to the use of the Synagogue where demand will only occur on Saturdays and can be catered for by utilising carparking allocated to the day-care centre and administration. A condition will be applied requiring the day-care centre not to operate on weekends to ensure the availability of carparking for Synagogue users. It should also be noted that the proposed carparking provision is based on the carparking numbers and layout adopted in the amended Master Plan on 27 August 2002.

 

§ Resident carspaces designed for people with a disability with minimum width of 3.2m

 

The applicant advises that the current application (for Stage 1 and part Stage 2) does not include any self-care accommodation and therefore this car parking requirement is not applicable. All residents in the current proposal for Stage 1 and part Stage 2 will be in residential care.

 

10.2     Policy Controls

 

10.2.1  Development Control Plan No. 18 – Corner of King and Dangar Streets Randwick

 

Most of the provisions of DCP No. 18 are no longer applicable to the subject site having been superseded by the provision of the SEPP 5 as applicable to the proposed development. In addition, the site has an adopted Master Plan pursuant to Amendment No. 17 to the Randwick LEP 1998, which sets the wider parameters and strategic framework for the proposed development.

 

10.2.2  Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal will not comply with the required 157 car spaces under the DCP – Parking as it will provide 136 basement car spaces. However, the shortfall in carparking is considered acceptable as demand for carparking for the Synagogue will only occur on Saturdays and can be catered for by utilising carparking allocated to the day-care centre and administration. A condition will be applied requiring the day-care centre not to operate on Saturdays to ensure the availability of carparking for Synagogue users. 

 

In addition, the applicant advises that the proposal will provide the following car spaces:

 

§ 7 short term parking bays adjacent to the reception area

§ 6 short term parking bays in the porte cochere adjacent to the Day Care Centre

§ lay by adjacent to the Synagogue with capacity for 2-3 cars

 

The proposal will have 6m – 6.2m wide aisles widths, generally complying with the 6.2m wide aisles width requirement of the DCP. Variations from the required width are considered minor and the application of turning templates to the carparking plan indicates that there will be adequate turning area for cars to access parking spaces from the proposed aisles.

 

10.3     Urban Design

 

The proposal will have a design and visual character that will enhance the streetscape through the introduction of a building that reflects in a modern way the traditional model of terraces house forms along the King Street and Dangar Street frontage. This built form will be suitably modulated into regular sections or bays to break any potential bulk in the terrace format. These sections or bays will have external finishes comprising colour rendered walls separated from each other by face-brick elements. Articulation will be provided in the form of vertically oriented window and door openings, well proportioned balconies and varying roof form and pitches providing for visual interest and relief.

 

The design of the proposed development is consistent with that shown in the adopted Master Plan as amended 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 especially to Dangar Street and King Street.

 

§ Stepping down in the scale of the building 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. 

 

§ Provision of 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

 

Surrounding residents have objected to any form of solid fencing around the proposed development. The applicant has advised that the fencing along all boundaries of the site will be in the form of palisade fencing which is considered acceptable subject to a condition requiring that details of the proposed fence be submitted to the satisfaction and approval of Council prior to issue of a construction certificate should approval be granted.

 

The overall effect of the design treatment is not considered to be out of character with the established streetscape along Dangar Street, King Street and Govett Lane and will complement the existing residential character of the locality satisfactorily. A sample board has been submitted with the application providing colours, textures and materials for a typical section of the external façade. However, it is considered that more details are required of all specific walls on which these colours and materials would be applied including the Synagogue. A condition will be applied requiring more details of the colours, materials and finishes in relation to specific sections of the building these will be applied to prior to issue of a construction certificate should consent be granted.

 

10.4     Heritage

 

The subject site contains the former Institute Building. This 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. These information and details have been provided with the subject application and have been assessed by Council’s heritage planner and found to be acceptable.

 

10.5     Landscaping and pedestrian access

 

The proposal complies with the landscaping control contained in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 which requires a landscaped area of 9,025 sqm (35 sqm x 60 self-care units plus 25 sqm x 277 aged care beds). The proposal provides for a total area of 16,082 sqm for landscaping. 

 

The setback areas along the street frontages will be utilised to provide a generous landscape setting for the proposed development. A significant number of trees will be required to be retained under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

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 spaces within the site are for the use of residents of the development and comprise two large areas - a green spine that extends from the paved area on the western side of the proposed Wellness Centre, and a passive lawn space to the south of the green spine and along the north-western boundary of the site. The proposal will also provide internal courtyard spaces for the use of residents, all of which will be suitably paved and landscaped.

 

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).

 

10.6     Impact on adjoining development

 

10.6.1  Overshadowing

 

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams indicating that at 9.00 am in the winter solstice, overshadowing will occur predominantly within the subject site and a small section of King Street. There will be minimal overshadowing of residential properties on the opposite side of King Street to the south. At 12 noon overshadowing from the proposed development will remain contained within the subject site. By 3.00 pm, the proposal will overshadow the western side of Dangar Street and some parts of King Street. Overall, there will be minimal, if no, overshadowing impact on surrounding residential properties from the proposed development.

 

10.6.2  Overlooking

 

The proposal will have balconies linked to lounge rooms on the second and third floor (above street level) of the building facing Govett Lane and on the second floor (above street level) of the building facing Dangar Street. The potential for overlooking into surrounding residential properties from these balconies will be minimal as:

 

§ The northern building facing Govett Lane will be setback by 15m from Govett Lane which combined with the 6m width of Govett Lane will provide a generous separation distance between the proposed development and existing residential properties across Govett Lane.

 

§ The eastern building facing Dangar Street will be setback by 10m from Dangar Street which combined with the 17m width of Dangar Street will provide a generous separation distance between the proposed development and existing residential properties on the opposite side of Dangar Street.

 

The second level terrace (above street level) in the south-eastern corner of the building fronting Dangar Street will face the existing UNSW tennis courts on the opposite side of Dangar Street and not residential properties. Whilst these tennis courts may be redeveloped for residential development in the future given the adoption of the Master Plan for the UNSW Chancellery complex, the Master Plan indicates that future residential development on this land will be setback by approximately 3m from Dangar Street giving adequate separation for privacy between the two developments .

 

10.6.3  Loss of views

 

There are existing district views currently enjoyed across the subject site from north-facing dwelling units on the top floors of the existing residential flat buildings fronting Church Street. The proposal may potentially result in some loss of district views to these dwelling units. However, the loss is not considered significant and will be minimised by the low to medium scaled nature of the proposed development.

 

10.7     Traffic and access

 

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.

 

No details of the carparking numbers for the self-care units in the Stage 2 development have been provided. However, the applicant has advised that the carparking provision for Stage 2 will comply with Council’s DCP –Parking.

 

A number of submissions have raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact of traffic from the proposed development and other developments being planned for in adjoining sites. It should be noted that the proposal will result in less traffic generation than that originally estimated in the earlier Master Plan because the number of self-care dwelling units will now 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.

 

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 requiring the implementation of these traffic-calming measures should approval be granted.

 

In addition, Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the key intersections surrounding the development using the INTANAL intersection program which has indicated that no significant impact will occur as a result of the development and that the intersections will operate at a satisfactory Level of Service (LOS). The traffic generated by the development is estimated by the traffic consultant at some 70 vehicles/hr peak hour based on a Montefiore aged care facility at Hunters Hill which comprises of some 369 residential care beds, daycare centre and synagogue. The traffic generated by the proposed development would be in the same magnitude. This  extra traffic can be accommodated by the surrounding road network.

 

10.8     Social Impact and Support Services

 

 A Social Impact Assessment has been provided with the development application. The report recognises that the proposed development would contribute significantly to the supply of residential aged care housing in the Eastern Suburbs. The proposal will also contribute to amenities in the area and provide new facilities which may be used by people in the surrounding areas including the following:

 

§ The Function Room which caters for gatherings of resident and friends and will also be made available to the local community should capacity allow.

 

§ The day care centre which is to be used by frail residents of the facility and older Jewish people living in the surrounding community. The centre will have mini-buses to transport people living in the wider community to and from the centre.

 

§ The Wellness Centre which will consist of commercial consulting rooms for a doctor, dentist, physiotherapist, podiatrist and other therapies such as aromatheraphy and will cater to the needs of residents and users of the day-care centre. Other people from the wider community will also be able to use these services as capacity allows.

 

Assessment of the Master Plan raised concerns regarding the potential inadequacy of local support services to meet demand from the proposed aged care housing facility contrary to the provisions of SEPP 5. In response, the report advises that the development of the aged care housing facility is not expected to increase demand for external support services such as personal care, home nursing and assistance with housework as the residents will have their support needs met by the Home. Furthermore, residents of the high care component of the proposal will have little need or ability to access such facilities.

 

Overall, the social impact of the proposed development is reasonable and acceptable.

 

10.9     Site Remediation

 

The adopted Master Plan requires that the site contamination issues be addressed 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 has submitted a Summary Site Audit Statement which concludes that the site is currently not suitable for beneficial re-use due to contamination. Accordingly, the Site Auditor for the site recommends that a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be prepared and Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Statement be issued in respect of the RAP. A condition will be applied requiring that the RAP be submitted to and approved by the Site Auditor and Council prior to commencing remediation works. A further condition will be applied requiring the submission to Council for approval of a Site Audit Statement stating that the site is suitable for the intended development and use prior to commencement of building works.

 

10.10   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. The applicant has provided a flora and fauna assessment with the development application which has been assessed by Council’s landscape officers who have raised no objections to the assessment. Council has no record of remnant bushland or endangered communities identified in the site. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has also submitted a Flora and Fauna Management Plan, the provisions of which will be required to be implemented in the proposed development should approval be granted.

 

10.11   Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

In line with the Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Act 1997, Council requires appropriate consideration to be given to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the assessment of development applications.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects contains a section detailing the application of ecologically sustainable policies and principles for the proposal. These policies and principles are proposed to be implemented by the following features:

 

§ Passive solar design-sun controls including architectural features to minimise air-condition loadings, provision of planting to shade exposed walls, and the use of shading devices and perforated sun-shades.

 

§ Energy conservation through the maximisation of natural light, and the achievement of Nathers Rating of 3.5 stars for the proposed dwellings.

 

§ Use of appropriate building insulation.

 

§ Maximisation of natural ventilation through the use of vented sky lights and atriums with low level openings to courtyards.

 

§ Use of a computerised control system for managing and detecting all the operating systems within the facility.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Ecologically Sustainable Development issues.

 

10.12   Issues raised in submissions

 

The majority of issues raised in resident submissions have been addressed in the relevant sections above. Some remaining concerns requiring comments are addressed below.

 

§ Setbacks to King Street, Dangar Street and Govett Lane is inadequate and inconsistent with adopted Master Plan

 

The proposal will have a setback from King Street of 10m consistent with the adopted Master Plan with the exception of a section relating to the proposed day care centre which will be 7.5m. A condition will be applied requiring this section to be setback to 10m as required under the adopted Master Plan. The proposal will be setback by 15m from Govett Lane and 10m from Dangar Street which is consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

 

§ Proposed development must not exceed the maximum building height contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

As the proposal is for an aged care housing facility, the applicable height control is contained in SEPP 5 which is discussed in Section 10.1.2 above.

 

§ Angle parking along Dangar Street and King Street will be dangerous to cyclists and detracts from Heritage Conservation area.

 

The applicant advises in the traffic report that angle carparking will be introduced in King Street and possibly Dangar Street.

 

The SRDAC and Council’s Traffic Engineer raises no objections to the provision of angle carparking on King Street given the adequate width of this street and the opportunity for appropriate angle car parking and associated traffic management measures to be incorporated in between the line of trees on the northern side of King Street. Furthermore, the proposed round-about at King Street and Dangar Street will calm future traffic movement along King Street.

 

Similarly, no objections have been raised by the SRDAC and Council’s Traffic Engineer in relation to possible angle carparking along Dangar Street subject to a condition requiring that the definition of parking lanes on Dangar Street along the frontage of the subject site be undertaken by line-marking to restrict traffic to one lane in each direction and catering for cyclists along Dangar Street as this street is a designated cycle path.

 

The subject site is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area and, as such, the proposed carparking will have no impact in this regard.

 

§ Loss of carparking in Dangar Street due to proposed layback.

 

The lay back on Dangar Street provides a safe and reasonable drop-off and pick-up facility for users of the Synagogue. The loss in on-street carparking, whilst inevitable, will be off-set by the increase in angle-carparking on King and Dangar Street. Furthermore, no objection has been raised to the provision of a layback in Dangar Street by the SRDAC and Council’s traffic engineer.

 

§ Traffic associated with the existing Jewish preschool is hazardous and should be relocated within the development.

 

The Jewish preschool is a temporary facility and will be relocated with the commencement of the Stage 2 redevelopment of the site. The site for the preschool’s relocation has not been determined at this stage.

 

§ Fencing must not be solid.

 

The proposal will have palisade fencing along the property boundaries and, as such, will not be solid. A condition will be applied requiring that details of the proposed fence be submitted to the satisfaction and approval of Council prior to issue of a construction certificate should approval be granted.

 

§ Use of function room will create noise.

 

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 have been assessed by Councils Environmental Health officer and has been found acceptable subject to appropriate conditions requiring strict hours of operations, and the submission to Council for approval of a plan of management for the function room prior to occupation.

 

§ Preconstruction dilapidation reports are required for all surrounding residents.

 

Standard development condition will be applied requiring dilapidation reports should these be necessary.

 

§ The cumulative impact of traffic from two other adjoining proposed developments have not been taken into account.

 

Traffic concerns have been addressed in Section 10.7 above.

 

§ Dangar Street should not take the bulk of entry and exit traffic.

 

The proposal does not propose a single entry and exit point on Dangar Street. In fact, two entry/exit points are proposed – one in Dangar Street and the other in King Street. The King Street entry/exit point shown in the current development application plans will be a temporary access point to allow for the continued operation of the existing Jewish pre-school facility in King Street during construction under Stage 1. The permanent King Street access point will be located further to the west adjacent to the western boundary when Stage 2 is constructed.

 

§ The proposed plaza area should not be rezoned Residential 2C.

 

The provision of a public zone comprising retail, community facilities and public open space in the south-eastern corner of the subject site under the adopted Master Plan is appropriate as it 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) will also complement the existing retail facilities (2 shops) located on the opposite side of King Street, on the corner with Church Street. The proposed plaza site is currently zoned Residential 2B. This site is not proposed to be rezoned Residential 2C. The Randwick LEP 1998 does not allow business premises within Residential zones 2A, 2B and 2C. However, 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. Council on 27 August 2002 resolved that a draft LEP instrument 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.

 

§ No recycling of concrete should be allowed on site as this will create dust hazards.

 

The applicant is unable to confirm categorically whether or not the recycling and reuse of concrete on-site will occur as this is dependant on the degree of bulk earth works that will be undertaken in the site in the future. However, the reuse and recycling of concrete material is a practice that is consistent with ecologically sustainable development principles. As such, a condition requiring the submission of a construction management plan incorporating, amongst other things, measures for controlling dust will be applied should approval be granted, which will address this issue should recycling of concrete on the site occur.

 

§ Construction traffic should be via King Street and not Dangar Street.

 

A condition will be applied restricting the route for all construction traffic associated with the proposed development to King Street, John Street and Alison Road.

 

§ Inadequate display of materials in Council’s offices.

 

The subject application was placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days. Council has previously written to the objector to address concerns raised regarding the unavailability of display documents in Council’s offices. The objector was advised that the loss of documents on public exhibition cannot be entirely avoided as occasionally document may not be returned after being viewed. Nevertheless, all display documents comprising plans, the statement of environmental effects and the development application were appropriately provided in Council’s offices. The absence of any document from the display package has not been due to any omission of material by Council.

 

§ 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. Furthermore, the amended Master Plan has been determined and adopted prior to the determination of the current development application.

 

11        CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is a permissible use in the Residential 2B and 2C zone applicable to the site under Randwick LEP 1998. The application is also consistent with the provision of the Master Plan as amended and adopted on 27 August 2002.

 

The proposal complies with all the statutory controls contained in SEPP 5 with the exception of height and density. The variations in height and density will not give rise to any detrimental impacts on the amenity of surrounding residential properties nor result in a development that would be inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape.

 

The proposal will not comply with the carparking requirements in DCP – Parking. However, the shortfall in carparking is considered acceptable as demand for carparking for the Synagogue will only occur on Saturdays and can be catered for by utilising carparking allocated to the day-care and administration centres.

 

The proposal would be suitable for the site, providing a useful facility for the aged and disabled. The proposal will introduce an appropriate use and development in an existing residential area with minimal impacts on the amenity of the locality. The proposal incorporates a design and facade that will complement the existing residential streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

 

12.       RECOMMENDATION:

 

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. 0551/2002 for demolition of existing buildings and erection of an aged care facility containing 277 aged care beds, synagogue, function room, day care centre and associated carparking comprising Stage 1 and Part Stage 2 of the approved Master Plan development for the Montefiore Jewish Home at 100-120 King Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A001 Issue C, A101 Issue D, A102 Issue D, A103 Issue D, A104 Issue D, A105 Issue D, A106 Issue D, A201 Issue D, A202 Issue D dated 12 June 2002 and received by Council on 13 June 2002, and amended plans A101 Issue D-1, A102 Issue D-1, A103 Issue D-1, A104 Issue D-1, A105 Issue D-1, A106 Issue D, A201 Issue D-1, A202 Issue D dated 12 June 2002 received by Council on 15 October 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 colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) in relation to the elevations of the building 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 a construction certificate being issued for the proposed building/s.

 

3.         The section of the building containing the day-care centre and floors above shall be setback 10m from King Street and details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate details.

 

4.         Details of the proposed palisade fence along all boundaries of the subject site shall be submitted to the satisfaction and approval of Council’s Director Planning and Community Development prior to issue of a construction certificate in relation to the subject building works.

 

5.         The day care centre shall not operate on weekends to ensure the availability of carparking for Synagogue users. 

 

6.         The applicant shall submit a plan of management for the function room to Council for approval prior to occupation, which includes the following information:

§ Details of proposed functions.

§ Type of entertainment to be provided.

§ Numbers of patrons and staff.

§ Management and security provisions.

§ Details of proposed measures to minimise potential nuisance and disturbance to nearby residents.

§ Hours of operation.

 

7.         The objectives and measures contained in the Flora and Fauna Management Plan prepared by Bangalay Botanical Surveys and dated June 2002 shall be implemented at all relevant phases of the proposed development as required in Part 5 (pages 13 to 19) of the Plan.

 

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

 

The following condition is applied to provide adequate provisions for access, amenity and public health safety.

 

9.         All construction traffic must access the site to and from King Street and be restricted to John Street and Alison Road.

 

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

 

10.       A formal remediation action plan (RAP) is to be prepared by an independent and 

suitably experienced, Environmental Consultant. This report is to be prepared in

accordance with the EPA guidelines and is to be submitted to and approved by the Site Auditor and Council prior to commencing remediation works.

 

This RAP is to include procedures for the following:

·    Excavation of Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil

·   On-site treatment by land farming

·    Validation sampling and analysis

·    Ground water monitoring

·    Contingency groundwater remediation and validation

 

This RAP is to be reviewed by an EPA Accredited Site Auditor. A Site Audit Statement (SAS) and Summary Site Audit Statement (SSAS) is to be issued in respect of this RAP.

 

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

 

·    Description and documentation of all works performed.

·    Results of validation testing and monitoring.

·    Validation results of any imported fill onto the site.

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

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

 

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

 

13.       The applicant is to engage an Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Accredited Site Auditor. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use.  A Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report is to be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to the commencement of building works, stating that the site is suitable for the intended development and use.

 

Any additional conditions that are specified in the Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report by the EPA accredited site auditor, form part of this consent and must be complied with. Written confirmation by the owner of the site is to be submitted to the Council stating all (if any) conditions will be complied with.

 

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

 

·    Occupational health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW)

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

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

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

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

 

15.       Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

16.       Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

17.       Prior to the commencement of works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times. Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

18.       All remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

                        Monday – Friday          7am – 5pm

                        Saturday                       8am – 5pm

                        No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

19.       The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the use of the premises and the operation of any plant or equipment on the site shall not give rise to an L10 sound pressure level which is 5dB(A) greater than the A-weighted L90 background sound pressure level, measured at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling.

 

20.       The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance.

 

21.       The hours of operation of the function room shall be restricted to 8.00am to 11.00pm seven days a week except with the prior written approval of the Manager of Environmental Health and Building.

 

22.       The noise level emitted from the development including any music/entertainment and plant/equipment (LA10) shall not exceed 5dB above the background level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz - 8kHz inclusive) at the nearest affected residential boundary between the hours of 7.00am to midnight.  The background level (LA90) shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from any music/entertainment provided in premises.

 

23.       The noise level emitted from the development including any music/entertainment (LA10) shall not exceed the background level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz - 8kHz inclusive) from 12.00 midnight to 7.00am at the nearest affected residential boundary.  The background level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from any entertainment provided in premises.

 

24.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, conditions of Council’s approval and the acoustic assessment prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd, dated June 2002.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 1989 and Council’s Food Premises Code:

 

28.       All kitchens and food storage areas are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Council’s Food Premises Code and details of compliance are to be included in the plans and specification for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

29.       The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

·    The floors of kitchens, food preparation areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non  slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·    The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved.

 

·    Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of solid construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall to a minimum height of 2m above the floor level, to provide a smooth even surface.

 

·    Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

 

·    The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

 

·    All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars etc. to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

 

·    Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material. The use of particle board or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

 

·    Adequate fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, (where applicable), are to be provided to all door and window openings, and an electronic insect control device is to be provided within the food premises.

 

·    Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded   and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·    A mechanical ventilation exhaust system hood is to be installed where cooking or heating processes are carried out in the kitchen or in food preparation areas, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.

 

·    Wash hand basins being provided in convenient positions, including food preparation and serving areas with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

 

·    Ceramic tiles being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins      and similar fittings.

 

·    A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to areas easily accessible to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances, bain maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.

 

·    All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60°C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

30.       The food premises must comply with the following requirements:-

 

·    Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements          of the Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

·    The disposal of waste materials in the domestic garbage service is not permitted.  All waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed service to serve the development are to be      submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

·    Council is to be notified upon completion or work and prior to occupancy, to enable the premises to be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the premises must be registered with the Council as a food premises (on an annual basis) prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

31.       Legionella control – cooling towers, humidifying systems, warm water systems, water cooling systems must be registered with the Council on an annual basis and the systems are to be maintained and certified in accordance  with the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1991.

 

The premises is to be registered with Council together with payment of the approved fee, prior to occupancy of the building.

 

The following condition has been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

32.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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:

 

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

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

34.       An application under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 is required to be made to Council with respect to Places of Public Entertainment and approval is to be obtained prior to operation.

 

35.       Places of Public Entertainment are to be registered with the Council on an annual basis and the Council’s registration/inspection form is to be completed by the proprietor and together with the appropriate fee, is to be forwarded to the Council, prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate.

 

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

 

 

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

 

37.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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:

 

38.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that 'unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited' and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, in accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

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

 

39.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s approval:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

44.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

45.       Retaining walls or shoring must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, if the soil conditions require it, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

46.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.