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

 

6th December, 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, 10TH DECEMBER, 2002 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

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

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2002 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL.

2

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 144/2002 - MOVEABLE FOOTWAY (A-FRAME) SIGNAGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.

3

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 145/2002 - TENDER 20/02 - STORMWATER PIPE RELINING WORKS PROGRAMME.

13

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 146/2002 - BUS SHELTERS.

18

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 147/2002 - PARKING STUDY.

21

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 148/2002 - ANZAC PARADE, LITTLE BAY - PROPOSED NARROWING OF ROAD VERGE.

24

 

 

8           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 100/2002 - 8 PINE STREET, RANDWICK.

33

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 101/2002 - 102 - 106 BROOK STREET, COOGEE.

55

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 102/2002 - 3 CROMWELL PLACE, MALABAR.

86

 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 103/2002 - 194R ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK (SOUTHERN PORTION OF ALISON PARK.)

98

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 104/2002 - 7 ROBERTS AVENUE, RANDWICK.

130

 

8.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 105/2002 - BUILDING CERTIFICATION SERVICES SURVEY.

137

 

8.7                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 106/2002 - 3R MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA  (PAVILION CAFE - MAROUBRA BEACH.)

143

 

8.8                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 107/2002 - 89-91 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

167

 

8.9                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 108/2002 - 9 RON FILBEE PLACE, MAROUBRA.

189

 

8.10                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 109/2002 - 88-98 KING STREET, RANDWICK.

200

 

8.11                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 110/2002 - SECTION 96(1A) AND SECTION 96(2) APPLICATION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS NO. 12, 37, 38, 44, 45, 58, 83, 101, 104, 105, AND 107 OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT NO. 0427/2002 RELATING TO INSURANCE POLICY, DAMAGE DEPOSIT, CIVIL WORKS BOND, LANDSCAPE/ENVIRONMENTAL PARK BOND, UTILITIES, ROAD DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN.

299

 

8.12                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 111/2002 - CLOVELLY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB, APPLICATION TO THE LICENSING COURT OF N.S.W. BY JENNIFER ELIADES FOR THE GRANT OF A CATERER'S LICENCE PURSUANT TO S. 18 OF THE LIQUOR ACT 1982

340

 

8.13                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 112/2002 - DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECT A NEW DWELLING HOUSE AT 145 BROOK ST, COOGEE.

345

 

 

9           Petitions

 


10         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

10.1                      

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Captain Cook Statue.

379

10.2

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Gardeners Road Trees

379

10.3

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Ambulance Services at Maroubra.

379

10.4

By Councillor Matson – Free Parking Agreements.

379

 

11         Urgent Business

 

12         Confidential Reports

 

12.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2002 - COMPENSATION TO TENANTS AT BOWEN LIBRARY.

380

 

 

13         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

14         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL

 

DATE:

5 December, 2002

FILE NO:

P/001615

 

 

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 assignment of the lease between Council as the registered proprietor of the land and Deruli Pty Ltd as the assignee for the purpose of carrying on a business of coffee lounge, restaurant and bar at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation requires 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 Council’s Seal be affixed to the Deed of Consent to the assignment of the lease between Council and Deruli Pty Ltd for the purpose of carrying on a business of coffee lounge, restaurant and bar at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 144/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signage Policy Development Considerations

 

 

DATE:

4 December, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1802

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Further to Report 97/2002 presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27th August 2002, Council resolved that:

               

“a report be prepared in accordance with the Council’s original resolution of 24th July, 2001 and that report also deal with the issue of whether poster advertising falls within the provisions of Section 11 of the Roads Regulation”

 

The original resolution of Council from its meeting held 24th July 2001 stated that:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

ISSUES:

 

After investigation of the issues associated  with the placement of temporary advertising structures and signage within Council’s roadway, Council’s original report (97/2002) recommended that the use of such Moveable Footway (A-frame) Signage be prohibited within the City of Randwick. However the following report again stipulates the issues required to be addressed in the development and adoption of a suitable Policy allowing the controlled placement of moveable footway signage within the City. A draft policy is included as an annexure to this report.

 

Current Practice & Legislation

 

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

 

ROADS (GENERAL) REGULATION 2000 - SECT 11

Division 3 Protection of roads and traffic

11 Things placed on and use of roads

(1) A person must not:

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

                  any vehicle, or

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

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

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

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

                  authority

 
Within the above legislation the definition of a “road” refers to the full width of the road reserve, which includes all land between adjacent property boundaries devoted to public travel including footpaths, road shoulders, verges and pavements. First time offenders are requested to remove the offending advertisement with repeat offenders being fined $350.00. 
 
With regards to the application of Part 2 Division 3 Section 11 of the Road (GENERAL) Regulation (2000), “Things Placed on and Use of Roads”, to poster advertising it is advised that this section of law applies to physical structures deemed to hinder the path of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. If the “poster” were to be attached to a moveable frame and placed within the road reserve then the abovementioned section of law may be applicable. However if the “poster” were attached to a static feature, such as a wall or a telegraph pole, then the Section of law above may not apply. Council’s Waste Department currently discourages and removes advertising in the form of posters (“bill posters”) as they do not comply with Council’s “Outdoor Advertising” Development Control Plan.
 
In addition to the legislation quoted above, the Local Government Act 1993 requires that the Council must give approval for a person or company to;
 
Expose or allow to be exposed (whether for sale or otherwise) any article in or on or so as to overhang any part of the road or outside a shop window or doorway abutting the road, or hang an article beneath an awning over the road
(Part E 2  “Approvals” table, Section 68, Local Government Act 1993)

 

In August 1998 Council adopted a Development Control Plan regarding “Outdoor Advertising”. The DCP deals with design and requirements of various forms of advertising in different zones. In all zones the advertising must relate to specific land uses and be contained within the property. Council’s Outdoor Advertising DCP specifically states that “A-Frames or similar types of advertising will not be permitted” in commercial zones. Thus in addition to enforcing the prohibition of A-frame or similar advertising under the Roads Act 1993, mentioned above, Council already has in place controls which does not permit A-frames and similar types of advertising within commercial zones.

 

In light of Council’s current position in relation to the abovementioned DCP and the Roads Act 1993, Council is required to amend the relevant sections of the “Outdoor Advertising” DCP and establish an approvals process to manage this type of advertising signage.

 

 

Considerations

 

Some of the considerations that would need to be addressed should Council decide to amend the “Outdoor Advertising” Development Control Plan and develop a Moveable Footway (A- Framed) Signage Policy are detailed and discussed below:

 

·    Pedestrian safety and access

·    Sign height and width

·    Required sign construction material and structural design

·    Advertising signage location assessment and standardisation

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

·    Sign content/Prohibited signage

·    Hours of operation

·    Annual administration fees and charges

·    Council approval process, management and policing

·    Level of public liability insurance for vendors

·    Insurance protection for Council

 

Pedestrian safety and access

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

 

Difficulties and/or accidents may also arise where temporary signage is moved from its intended or approved place either by members of the public or during weather events and thereby present a hazard to either pedestrians and/or motorists. A complete risk analysis will be required to be undertaken with each proposed sign to assess pedestrian access and community safety.

 

The use of such signage could only take place in areas where there is deemed to be sufficient room to allow road users to continue without obstruction. This includes the free movement along footways of those utilising perambulators, wheelchairs or motorised means of assisted travel (“Gophers”). However, as the majority of businesses within Randwick City are located within densely populated areas, a collection of signage upon the footway or nature strip may inhibit the flow of pedestrians, particularly the disabled and the elderly. Moveable footway signage may also restrict the ability of young children or those in wheelchairs to identify any hazards that lie ahead. It is recommended that a clear traversable width of 2 metres (minimum) be maintained within the footpath at all times.

 

Additionally, the granting of applications within one area and not another, based upon issues such as pedestrian flow, may generate a feeling of bias within the commercial community.

 

Sign height and  width

A standard signage height and width is required to be adopted in order to expedite both the approval and policing process of moveable footway signage. The adopted height and width should not only be deemed appropriate for the minimisation of visual clutter within the City, but also be considered from a safety viewpoint, as the sight distance of children and those in wheelchairs may be limited a moveable footway sign. This in turn may affect a person’s ability to address an approaching situation, or notice the movements of others, such as a reversing vehicle. The sign size and location must not impede the safe sight distance of a vehicle at any time.

 

The acceptance of standard signage can also allow for the development of a standard schedule of annual fees and charges and assist in the control that Council’s Planning Department may exert over the visual amenity of a given streetscape.

 

Required sign construction material and structural design

Council may specify a standard construction material, in addition to required design specifications. Signage will be required to be sturdy, resistant to breakage/splintering and without sharp edges or protrusions. It could be expected that pedestrians, particularly the elderly or less mobile, may at some stage utilise the signs as a means of support, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence the signs should not collapse under load whilst being displayed. The signs should have soft rubber edging to minimise pedestrian injury through impacts with the sign edges. The sign should have a small amount of give to minimise the extent of injury suffered by a pedestrian as a result of impact with the sign.

 

Advertising signage location assessment and standardisation

The location for a sign must be assessed by Council officers on its merits. It is advisable that Council standardise the location for the erection of moveable footway signage, suggested to be a distance of 650mm from the face of kerb to the outer edge of the sign. This will allow in most cases pedestrians to maintain a line of travel closer to businesses, which will in particular assist the visually impaired and the elderly, who may utilise business facades for support and also to locate themselves within a street. Positioning signage at this distance from the kerb will allow a car door to be opened carefully with minimal, in any, impact with the sign and also provide the greatest level of advertising exposure to motorists and pedestrians.

 

The usage and placement of temporary advertising signs will have a noticeable impact upon the streetscape. Consideration during the approval process is required in order to limit “cluttering” of the streetscape that may occur due to excessive advertising.

 

Methods by which signage is to be affixed to the ground

Signs will be required to be fixed in such a manner as to resist movement during weather events whilst allowing limited movement/absorption of impact in the event of a pedestrian accident. It is not assumed signage will withstand a vehicular (greater that an opening car door) impact. The absorption of pedestrian impact should be achieved through a spring-dampened movement over distance of 150mm, providing increasing resistance with movement but not collapsing.

 

The method of fixture to the ground should be such that the sign can be removed quickly and easily, if required to do so. It is not recommended that signage be affixed to other structures within the road reserve, particularly telegraph or power poles as these remain within the ownership of Energy Australia. Any remaining anchor/chainage points after removal of a sign must not pose a hazard to pedestrians. Whilst erect, the method of fixture should not impede the flow of pedestrians along the footway or provide a point where damage may occur to vehicles parking alongside the kerb (e.g. a protruding chain).

 

Sign content/Prohibited signage

The information displayed upon advertising signage will be required to be assessed during the approvals process by members of Councils Planning Department and continue to be monitored by Councils Rangers. Signs should not contain pictorial or written content that is deemed likely to offend either the general public or particular special interest groups.

 

Signs should not be allowed to carry flashing lights or highly reflective surfaces that may cause distraction to passing motorists. For similar reasons the signs should be static without moving/rotating parts. "Bill posters" shall remain prohibited under the any proposed Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signage Policy or amendment to the “Outdoor Advertising” DCP as they are considered a source of visual pollution and litter.

 

Hours of operation

Signs should only be displayed during normal business operation hours and be removed from the footway at the conclusion of business or earlier. Leaving moveable footway signage within the roadway overnight is not recommended as it may inhibit Council’s street and footpath sweeping operations and be subject to vandalism, creating an unsafe structure on Council property. It may also present hazard to pedestrians using the footpath at night, reasonably expecting that the signage has been removed outside of business hours.

 

Annual administration fees and charges

Council would be required to develop a fair and equitable system of charging for the administration and constant monitoring of moveable footway signage. These fee and charges would be required to offset the cost additional workload on Council staff required to assess applications and compliance. The pricing structure should also take into account a “rental” of the area of roadway occupied by the signage. Council may consider a fee for the usage of Council’s logo on approved signage.

 

Council approval process, management and policing

The decision of Council to adopt a policy assessing and, where applicable, approving moveable footway signage would require the time and involvement of Council’s Planning Department in the assessment of applications. A formalised process should be developed for the assessment of applications in order to limit any bias that may be perceived by the community regarding the granting of applications.

 

Moveable footway signage would also require constant vigilance by Council’s Rangers in ensuring that all approved signage is located and affixed in accordance with the adopted DCP, Policy and approved application. Confusion may also develop where signage is placed without approval amongst Council approved signage. It is therefore necessary to formalise the process required to inspect and manage the compliance of granted applications to limit the times required for inspection.

 

The additional workload may require the employment of additional staff in either the Planning or Compliance division, or both.

 

Level of public liability insurance for vendors

Public liability insurance is required by any applicant proposing to place a temporary advertising or otherwise structure upon the roadway. The suggested minimum limit of public liability insurance is $10 million with a certificate of currency for the duration of the contract/licence. This insurance will attempt to ensure that, in the event of the temporary structure causing or being involved in an accident, damages will be sought through the indemnifying organisation rather than Council

 

Insurance protection for Council

In addition to current public liability insurance there should be a documented contractual arrangement between Council and the vendor indemnifying Council against any claims that may result from Council approved signage. However, the provision of public liability insurance on the applicant’s behalf or contractual documentation indemnifying Council may not always ensure that Council is entirely absolved of responsibility as the approving authority during litigation.

 

Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signage Within Other Local Government Areas

 

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

 

Of the four metropolitan Councils bordering Randwick City Council, two have adopted formal policies prohibiting the use of moveable footway signage, namely: Woollahra City Council and South Sydney City Council. The City of Botany Bay is currently developing a Development Control Plan relating to advertising signage and does not prohibit the use of A-frame signage. Waverly City Council has a Moveable Footway Signs Policy that permits A-Frame signage against the façade of a business subject to strict controls. Metropolitan Councils in which the use of moveable footway signage is either prohibited, discouraged or currently in the process of becoming prohibited are:

 

·    The City of Sydney

·    Lane Cove City Council

·    Mosman Municipal Council

·    Parramatta City Council

 

Nevertheless, some metropolitan Councils have adopted to allow A-framed signage within their streetscape. Under the Local Government Act 1993, Council is allowed to charge for the administration, approval and leasing of the public road. The fees and charges set by those Councils allowing moveable footpath advertising vary greatly, as prescribed below:

 

·    Marrickville City Council          -           $66.00 application fee +

$6.60 per m2 per week lease

 

·    Hornsby Shire Council  -           $200 annual fee

 

·    Hurstville City Council  -           $100 application fee

$30 “imaging” fee

$100 annual fee

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Should Council wish to proceed with the draft policy allowing the abovementioned form of advertising to be placed within Council’s road reserve, Council should first amend it’s own Development Control Plan regarding Outdoor Advertising Development to allow the placement of movable footway signage within the roadway.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

Council adopt in principle the attached DRAFT Policy on Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signs subject to Council’s Planning Department preparing an amendment to the “Outdoor Advertising” Development Control Plan that would permit the erection of A-Framed signage, in accordance with Council’s specifications and conditions, and refer the Draft Policy to Council for further consideration upon amendment of the DCP.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

DRAFT Policy on Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signs.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET CO-ORDINATOR

 


 

Randwick City Council

Policy Register

 

Part

 

Review Date                                                                                         Policy No.

 

POLICY TITLE:  

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

 

File No.

 

OBJECTIVE

 

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

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signage shall be permitted to be placed within Council’s Roadway for a contract period of no greater than one (1) year subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Pedestrian Access

 

Adequate pedestrian access and clearance shall be maintained at all times whilst the signage is displayed. A clear, traversable width of 2 metres (minimum) shall be maintained along the footway between the signage and any adjacent structure(s).

 

There shall be no more than one (1) sign permitted per commercial address.

 

 

2.   Sign Height & Width

 

Signage shall have combined height (frame and advertisement) of 800mm and a total width no greater than 700mm and no less than 350mm.

 

 

3.   Structural Design

 

Structural design of the frame, materials, edging, impact absorption mechanism and collapsing mechanism shall be in accordance with Council’s specifications.

 

 

4.   Signage Location and Assessment

 

An assessment shall be made with each application as to the suitability of placement of a moveable footway sign within a given location.

 

Where a particular site is assessed as being able to provide the required clear width for pedestrian traffic for the desired size of sign, the sign shall be located with an edge at a distance of 650mm from the face of kerb.

 

 

5.   Fixture Method

 

Each applicant is to provide details with the application as to the proposed fixture method.

 

Signs are not permitted to be affixed to telegraph poles, rubbish bins, seating, street signage poles or any other object within the road reserve.

 

 

6.   Sign Content/Prohibited Signage

 

The content of each sign shall be stipulated with each application.

 

Council will not permit the display of signage deemed to be offensive, “smutty”, or derogatory in nature, or likely to cause offence to religious or special interest groups.

 

Signs are not permitted to contain revolving parts, flashing lights or highly reflective surfaces.

 

 

7.   Hours of operation

 

Signs shall only be displayed during normal business operating hours (8:00am to 5:00pm) unless a valid extension is granted with the application. All signs shall be removed from the road reserve at the close of business or as defined within the contract with Council.

 

 

8.   Level of public liability insurance for vendors

 

All vendors must contain a Public Liability Policy with an accredited insurance firm to the value of no less than $10 million AUS. A certificate of Currency is required to be provided with the application stating the duration of the policy and required date of renewal. An application will not be granted outside the duration of the policy.

 

9.   Insurance Protection for Council

 

The vendor shall enter into a contractual arrangement with Council indemnifying Council against any litigation that may result from the placement of moveable signage outside a premises.

 

 

10. Annual administration fees and charges

 

The application fee and annual administration fee shall be in accordance with Council’s annual schedule of fees and charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.                                                                              Meeting Date:

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 145/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 20/02 - STORMWATER PIPE RELINING WORKS PROGRAMME

 

 

DATE:

5 December, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2835

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Tenders were called for the relining of the Coogee Trunk Drainage System and the period supply of pipe relining and pipe repair services to Council for a one year period ending 31st January 2004. The stormwater pipe relining and repair works programme is part of Council’s capital works program 2002/2003 with a budget in the amount of $488,540.

 

This tender will allow the Council to undertake the Coogee Trunk Drainage System and other relining projects in accordance with the preferred supplier agreement for the one year period.

 

The Tender closed on 19th November 2002 and Council received five tenders in total.

Tenders were received from the following Contractors:

Tyco Water

Interflow

Metropolitan Restorations

Collex Nodig

Essig Products

 

This report reviews the various pipe relining and pipe repair systems offered by the Tenderers and recommends the tender that offers the best value to Council.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick City Council has an aging stormwater pipe infrastructure. The majority of pipes are in excess of fifty years old with a significant number of pipes greater than 100 years old.

 

 

Quite often it is not practical to relay aging stormwater pipes due to adjacent buildings, busy roads and public utility services. Relining of aging stormwater pipelines to extend the life of the pipeline by approximately 50 years becomes a very practical alternative to relaying pipes in problematic locations.

 

The Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage System comprises twin 1500mm diameter pipes, which run from Brook Street under Coogee Oval, Arden Street and Goldstein Memorial Reserve to a 3350 x 1800 mm reinforced concrete box culvert downstream that discharges the stormwater into the sea at the northern end of Coogee Beach. The lump sum component of this project is to reline the southern twin 1500mm diameter pipe which has had large sections of its invert worn away. The worn invert of the pipe is a structural failure and Council runs the risk of a pipe failure from pipe collapse. The cost to Council of a pipe collapse is quite high if it occurred in this system. Council could expect a large area of Coogee Oval or Arden Street to be washed onto Coogee Beach and the potential for flooding of adjacent properties.

 

 

Tender Evaluation

All tenders were assessed in accordance with Council’s purchasing policy and the Local Government Tendering Regulations. The evaluation criteria is detailed as follows:

·    Price

·    Time period to complete the work

·    Financial Capacity to carry out the work

·    Experience and ability to complete the work

·    Compliance with the specification

·    Quality Management System of the tenderer

·    Occupational Health and safety

·    Structural and wearing properties of the proposed lining system

·    Value for money provided by the proposed lining system

 

The evaluation criteria was not listed in any particular order nor are they exhaustive and do not accord equal weight in the tender assessment process.

 

The full tender evaluation and value for money analysis is provided as attachment A.

 

Discussion of Tenders

Tenders were structured into two parts. The first part was to submit a Lump Sum Price to undertake the Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage System Relining. The second part was to submit various pipe relining and pipe repair rates to allow Council to select a preferred supplier for a period of a year with the agreement expiring on the 31st January 2004 to undertake miscellaneous pipe relining projects during the contract period.

 

Part One - Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage System Relining

Three contractors submitted lump sum prices to undertake part one of the Tender. The tenderer with their prices are detailed below:

 

Tenderer                                 Lump Sum Price

Tyco Water                              $219,584

Interflow                                   $347,324

Metropolitan Restorations         $255,000

 

Tyco Water tendered a continuous plastic section relining system, which is fed through existing manholes and is grouted into position snugly within the stormwater pipe. The smoother plastic surface provided by the liner instead of the rough worn concrete pipe helps to compensate for the small loss of waterway area that is a result of installing any structural lining system. The lining system proposed by Tyco water fully complies with Council specification and Council could expect the life of the relined pipe by an additional fifty years. Tyco has offered the lowest Lump Sum Price.

 

Interflow has also has tendered a continuous plastic section relining system which is fed through existing manholes and is grouted into position snugly within the stormwater pipe similar to the Tyco System which will also extend the pipe line by approximately 50 years. The interflow system offers better structural capacity than the Tyco system as the Interflow plastic liner has a deeper plastic section providing greater liner rigidity. Both Tyco Water and Interflow have submitted structural calculations in accordance with the Australian Standard for thin walled pipes that satisfy the structural loading conditions of the pipe.

 

Metropolitan Restorations offers a lining system, which incorporates a range of cementious pipe repairs to the existing pipe and then applies a thin epoxy coating to preserve the remaining life of the existing pipe. This system does not increase the structural capacity of the pipe and thus is not entirely suitable for the rehabilitation of the Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage Pipe. The system offered by Metropolitan Restorations is more suitable for non-circular pipes and culverts. Another advantage that Metropolitan Restorations offers is the smallest loss of waterway area as their system involves the application of a thin coating to the bore of the pipe.

 

Part Two – Period Supply of Pipe Relining Systems

 

Five contractors offered various rates to undertake various pipe repairs and pipe lining systems specified by Council’s Tender Documents. The summary of tendered rates are contained as Attachment B. The tenders were assessed against the tender evaluation criteria and the rates were compared by considering a number of typical relining scenarios that Council may experience over the course of a year.

 

Tyco Water’s tender offers Council the full range of relining services and repairs that Council could reasonably expect to require over the period of the proposed contract. The tendered rates evaluated with the typical relining scenarios demonstrated that Tyco Water’s tendered rates offered the least cost and best value to Council. All Tyco Water’s relining systems are conducted via the existing manholes, which saves costs. Some of the other systems tendered require excavation to access the pipe to be relined.

 

Tyco Water utilises a fibreglass liner for pipe sizes less than 675 mm diameter and a continuous plastic liner for pipes in excess of 675 mm diameter. All Tyco Water’s systems comply with the Australian Standard for the installation of thin walled pipes.

 

Tyco Water’s rates had no minimum relining length restrictions allowing Council to utilise the tendered rate for relatively small jobs if it was necessary. Tyco Water has previously performed relining services for Randwick City Council and their previous performance has been excellent. Tyco Water is currently undertaking relining works for 1a Leeton Street, which Tyco Water won on an advertised call for quotations earlier this year.

 

Interflow’s tendered rates are very competitive for pipe sizes less than 675 mm diameter, however Tyco Water’s rates were still overall slightly cheaper as Interflow qualified it’s rates with minimum lengths so that if Council needed to undertake work on project that was less than fifty metres long, then Interflow reserved the rights to alter their rates.

 

As mentioned previously Interflow’s relining system is a very good system and in certain circumstances offers greater structural strength if the situation required.

 

Metropolitan Restorations offered a man entry repair and epoxy coating system to preserve the life of existing pipes that had a diameter of 1200 mm or greater. The proposed system is economical, does not greatly reduce the waterway area, however the system offers little structural improvement to a pipe. It is very unlikely over the period of contract that Council would require this type of pipe rehabilitation.

 

Metropolitan Restorations offers a material and labour warrantee for a period of 20 years whereas all other tenders offer warrantees of 50 years.

 

Collex Nodig offers a fibreglass relining system for pipes less than 600 mm in diameter only. Their tender was more expensive than the other relining systems offered by the other tenderers and offered no greater value to Council. Even if Collex Nodig’s system offered improved quality over the other systems Council is unlikely to receive any great benefit, as these systems will all last approximately fifty years.

 

Collex Nodig’s system requires excavation to access the pipe proposed to be relined and so has greater costs.

 

Council received an alternative to relining from Essig Products who offered a pipe bursting system. Pipe bursting utilises very powerful hydraulic pipe expanders, which open the bore of the existing pipe by shattering the pipe to allow a new pipe to be installed in the void created. The earth pressures created adjacent to the pipe by this system are enormous and can affect and deform adjacent infrastructure. Council does not intend to utilise this system during the term of the period supply contract.

 

This alternative offered by Essig Products is for pipe sizes up to 600mm in diameter. The system is more expensive than the other relining systems offered. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The tender evaluation for both parts of the Stormwater Pipe Relining Tender demonstrates that Tyco Water’s tender for the relining of the Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage System and the pipe relining and repair schedule of rates tender for the period supply of relining services and pipe repairs for a period of approximately one year expiring on the 31st January 2004, offers the best value for Council and is also the least cost to Council. Tyco Water’s tender is fully compliant with Council’s specifications and requirements for service, environmental management, insurance, quality management and occupational health and safety.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         Council accepts Tyco Water’s tender and enter into a contract for the relining of the Coogee Basin Trunk Drainage System

2.         Council accepts Tyco Water’s tendered schedule of rates to undertake various pipe relining and pipe repair services for a period of one year expiring on the 31 January, 2004

3.         Council authorise the Mayor and General Manger to sign contract documents as necessary to enter into these contracts.

4.         That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be fixed to both contracts 20/02 between Council and Tyco Water.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Attachment A - Tender Evaluations

Attachment B - Summary of Contractors Tendered Rates

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 146/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BUS SHELTERS

 

 

DATE:

5 December, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0959 (Part 5)

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Works Committee Meeting, 10th September, 2002 the Committee resolved:

 

That a that a report be prepared by the relevant Council officer on the condition and ownership of these two bus shelters, including whether or not they are to be removed or repaired.

 

The two shelters are located at Clovelly Road at the Glebe Street closure and at the corner of Frenchmans Road and Avoca Street, Randwick.

 

ISSUES:

 

The first shelter is constructed of brick and may have been constructed in the 1950’s or 60’s.  Two more identical shelters exist within the City of Randwick and are located in Mons Avenue, south of Maroubra Road, Maroubra and  Bream Street, corner of Mount Street, Coogee.  The second shelter mentioned in the resolution dates from an earlier period with the architectural style being recognisable to that of other buildings built around 1910 to 1920.  These shelters were originally associated with the trams services that operated in the City during last century.  Each of these shelters is in a poor state of repair with graffiti covering significant portions of the buildings.  A strong smell of urine can be detected in and around the shelters and the shelters are often used as a place to dump rubbish.  Two of the three brick shelters have compressed sheet roof tiles with many being broken, dislodged or missing.

 

The ownership of these shelters has been the subject of significant correspondence between the STA and Council with each party denying ownership or responsibility for the assets.  At a meeting held earlier this year, the STA undertook to pay for the demolition and making good of the sites on the basis that Council made arrangements to have replacement shelters installed through its contract with JCDecaux.

 

The shelter in Clovelly Road already has a JCDecaux shelter installed and demolition of the STA shelter was placed on hold pending further investigations into correspondence received from a resident asking that the shelter be placed on the NSW Heritage List as reminder of the tram infrastructure and as being in his view, the last known such shelter in Randwick.  The resident’s claim was supported by the Hon Ernie Page, Member for Coogee.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner was asked to comment on the known staus of the shelters from a heritage perspective and has advised as follows:

 

It is noted that there is a dispute between Council and the STA over the ownership of the shelters.  S.170 of the NSW Heritage Act requires all State government instrumentalities to establish and keep a Heritage and Conservation Register of properties in their ownership.  If the government instrumentality proposes to demolish a place entered in its Register, it must notify the Heritage Council.  It is not known whether the bus shelter is on the STA’s S.170 Register.

 

The subject bus shelter is not currently listed on the State Heritage Register and Council has had no contact from the NSW Heritage Office in relation to any proposed listing.  Unless a site is on the Register there is no requirement for Council to refer any proposal to the Heritage Office.  Sites are generally not listed on the State Heritage Register unless they are of State significance.  It is unlikely that the bus shelter has this level of significance.

 

Randwick LEP 1998 does not generally require development consent on unzoned land for the purpose of a public utility undertaking.  The bus shelter is not listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998, if it were however, development consent would be required for demolition.  Council does not have any information that the bus shelter is of local heritage significance, warranting listing as a heritage item.  The NSW Heritage Manual provides 7 criteria for assessing types of heritage significance- importance to the State’s natural or cultural heritage; association with a person of historical importance; importance in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics or creative or technical achievement; association with a community or cultural group; potential to contribute to an understanding of natural or cultural history; possessing uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of natural or cultural history; importance in demonstrating the principle characteristics of a class of the local area’s cultural or natural environments or places.

 

If the bus shelter were considered to have heritage significance under one or more of these categories, then Council could take steps to amend the LEP to include the bus shelter on the Schedule of Heritage Items.  This is a time consuming and costly process and would take between 9 and 12 months.  If more urgent action were required, the NSW Heritage Office is able to place the property under an Interim Heritage Order under the NSW Heritage Act.  Council has not been advised that the bus shelter is the subject of an IHO.

 

The timber shelter located on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Avoca Street presents are more difficult problem.  The development of the adjoining residential site resulted in the construction of an 1800 mm high brick boundary fence and given the setback of the shelter to the road and the road configuration, approaching buses cannot be seen if waiting within the shelter.  Additionally, the timber seats were badly damaged and removed some time back, again reducing the functionality of the shelter.  Given the Heritage Planner’s advice, poor functionality of the shelter and the fact that the shelter is a constant source of complaint from nearby and other residents, Council should support the demolition of the shelter and should ask the STA to take all necessary steps to have the shelter removed.  Given that the land is public road, Council will need to take responsibility for the treatment of the land following the demolition.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the above information, there appears to be no impediment to the demolition of the three 1950’s style brick bus shelters.  JCDecaux has inspected the two shelters at Coogee and Maroubra and has indicated that the sites are suitable for JCDecaux shelters.  The STA and Council Officers have jointly inspected the shelter sites and the STA is ready to engage contractors to demolish the shelters subject to Council concurrence.

 

In relation to the timber shelter, it will not be possible to provide a shelter that adequately addresses sight distance issues and given the narrow footway at this location, the only plausible action is to install a seat as a replacement for the shelter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1    Require the STA to demolish three brick bus shelters located at Clovelly Road at the Glebe Street closure, Mons Avenue, south of Maroubra Road, Maroubra and  Bream Street, corner of Mount Street, Coogee as a matter of urgency.

2    Advise the STA that it has no objection to the demolition of the Timber shelter located at the corner of Frenchmans Road and Avoca Streets, Randwick subject to the STA complying with S.170 of the NSW Heritage Act.

3    Council advise the Hon Ernie Page, Member for Coogee of its actions in relation to the shelter at Clovelly Road at the Glebe Street closure.

4    Council arrange for replacement shelters and a bus seat at the above locations as detailed in the report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 147/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PARKING STUDY

 

 

DATE:

5 December, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has over the last year made several recommendations in relation to parking and in particular pay parking within the City of Randwick.         These resolution are as follows:

 

Council prepare a brief for a consultant to prepare a city wide parking plan in accordance with the recommendations of the draft Randwick Transport Study.

 

(a)        Council agree in principle to compensate the surf clubs for revenue currently collected from parking fees that may be lost by the introduction of pay parking; and

 

(b)        Council take into account the effect of pay parking on active surf club duties      and negotiate an appropriate resolution of this matter with the club presidents.

 

Council not proceed with the implementation of parking meters anywhere within the City of Randwick unless and until a report has been brought before Council which addresses all of the aspects of this subject that ought to be considered by a reasonable‑minded Council, properly discharging its duties under the Local Government Act.

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution a consultant has been engaged to prepare a city wide on street parking study. As part of the consultancy the study will address all Council’s resolutions on the matter of parking and  pay parking. The purpose of this report is to update Councillors on the status of the current parking study.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council for a number of years has operated a resident permit parking scheme within the City. The scheme arose out of a need to protect residential amenity as a result of increased parking demand within individual streets generally associated with commercial, tourist and other traffic generating developments.

 

The existing resident parking schemes within the City are on a street-by-street basis. In November 2000 the validity of the resident parking scheme in parts of  The Spot was

 

challenged in the Supreme Court (Ziade v Randwick City Council). The ruling (previously reported to Council) considered the residential scheme in parts of The Spot to be “ultra vires or invalid and of no force and effect.”

 

In the judges ruling on this matter the administration of the scheme was strongly criticized. Since that ruling procedures surrounding the operation of the scheme have been tightened and inconsistencies where they exist eliminated, however this tight administration has caused resentment in some areas.

 

What has become obvious in the period since the court ruling is that Council required an overall on street parking strategy

 

This point was further raised as part of the Council’s public consultation in relation to possible implementation of pay parking at the beach side car parks. At those meetings it was clear that Council had no statistics of parking demand or any over all plan to manage on street parking demand on a local and / or City wide basis. In fact members of the public at both the Maroubra and the Clovelly meeting claimed that they had no parking problem at all and strongly opposed the implementation of any pay-parking scheme. No statistics were available at that time to either refute or back up these claims.

 

As a result of these public consultations Council made several resolutions in relation to pay parking including the implications of pay parking on the local Surf Clubs. In particular Council resolved to engage a consultant to prepare a citywide parking strategy in accordance with the Randwick Transport Study.

 

The consultant brief was prepared and requires the preparation of a on street parking plan for the City which addresses but is not limited to the following issues;

 

            Ensuring turnover of on-street parking

            Providing improved access to on-street parking spaces

            Discourage overnight and illegal parking (camping)

            Improved management of residential parking

            Reducing the incidence of commuter parking

            Improved parking restriction enforcement

            Review of all existing resident parking schemes.

 

In response to Council’s Brief Arup Transport Planing were engaged to carry out the City wide On-Street Parking Study. As pat of the study Arup have been requested to review and take into account Councils previous resolutions of pay parking.

 

Arup have proposed as part of their study to carry out detailed parking surveys in Coogee, Maroubra, Clovelly, Randwick, Kensington, and Kingsford. The survey process includes determining the number of parking spaces available in each street to determine a parking inventory for each street. After the inventory is complete a number plate survey of each parked vehicles in each street is carried out at half hourly intervals. This information will allow analysis of parking demand and turnover within each street in the survey area.

 

The parking demand surveys were carried out over a number of weeks in October and November 2002 and are now complete.

 

Arup are now continuing to work on the analysis of the parking demand survey and the strategic direction for on-street parking.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is envisaged that the parking study by Arup Transport Planning will be complete early in 2003. The report will be an important step forward in the management of on-street parking within the City. The report will also recommend improvements to the current and proposed resident parking schemes within the City. It is envisaged that the parking study will be reported to Council at either its February or March 2003 meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure’s Report dated 5 December, 2002, be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 148/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANZAC PARADE, LITTLE BAY - PROPOSED NARROWING OF ROAD VERGE

 

 

DATE:

2 December, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0031/01

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of the negotiations between Council and Landcom officers in relation to the Prince Henry Hospital Site the issue of the extremely wide Anzac Parade road verge adjacent to the site was discussed.  Council officers indicated that they would be prepared to support a closoure of and disposal of the unnecessary section of this verge.

 

As a consequence of these discussions, a letter dated 20 November, 2002 was received by Council indicating that Landcom would be interested in negotiating the purchase of this strip of Anzac Parade road reserve subject to conditions referred to in this letter. Attached to the letter is a sketch plan of the suggested closure and a valuation indicating the suggested value of this land. (A copy of this submission is attached).

 

 

ISSUES:

 

There have been protracted discussions in relation to provision of adequate road widths on this site. The original concept indicated that the majority of the existing road network serving the site would be kept and extended only to service housing allotments being proposed on what is currently vacant land.

 

Council officers have argued that the road widths within the site need to be upgraded to current standards and that all roads which will become Council’s responsibility following completion of the development must be reconstructed and handed over in an “as new” condition, to reduce Council’s future maintenance liability with respect of these roads.

 

The requirements stipulated by Council’s officers have obviously affected the yield of this site and the additional land which could be sourced from the very wide Anzac Parade road verge could help Landcom maintain their site yield. The benefit to Council would be the funds realised from the closure and sale of this land should Council be the beneficiary as well as the reduced area of land which needs to be maintained by Council’s work-force.

 

Landcom has suggested that the road verge width should be reduced to 3.6m as is the case in other sections of Anzac Parade. Council officers have indicated that they would prefer to maintain a minimum road verge width of 4m at this location to accommodate any future footpath construction and landscaping which may be required in front of this site.

 

In order to proceed with such a closure, Council is not the determining authority and must apply to the Department of Land and Water Conservation, in compliance with the relevant sections of the Roads Act. Since Council has no real use of this land it is considered that Council should support Landcom’s request and submit this application 

 

Council also has a responsibility to dispose of its assets in a responsible manner and it is considered that any disposal of this land (should the closures proceed) should be subject to a sale dependent on a market value of this parcel of land, set by an independent valuer. It is considered that due to the amount of land being considered Council may wish to get its own separate valuation for the subject land.

 

All costs involved in the application, including survey, legal, application and valuation costs (excepting Council’s separate valuation), should be borne by Landcom or its agents .

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council and the public do not make thorough use of these parcels of land and as sections of public public roads and they appear to be surplus to Council’s needs.

 

Any applications to close these roads must comply with Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Roads Act 1993.  Council would need to apply for these closures on behalf of the Landcom and the Department of Land and Water Conservation is the determining authority.

 

Council’s officers are currently investigating who would benefit from such a land sale. This section of  Anzac Pde is still a classified secondary road  although it is a regional road under Council’s control.

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation could then advertise the proposals as required by the Roads Act, 1993.  It is therefore considered that Council should take the initial step of applying to the Department to close and sell the relevant sections of Anzac Pde road verge at Little Bay adjacent to the Prince Henry Hospital Site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council make application to close and sell the sections of Anzac Parade road verge shown on the attached diagrams( note that the road verge will be maintained at a width of 4m), subject to:

 

a.         All survey and legal costs to be borne by the Landcom.

 

b.         Council briefing its own valuer to set a reasonable value for the land in question

 

c.         Landcom ensuring that none of the public utility authorities including AGL, Energy Australia, Telstra, etc. have any objection to the closure and sale of the subject lane.

 

d.         Landcom advising the Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment of the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to Council making application for this closure.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letters of application from Landcom including sketches of land in question.

Valuation from Theo Stamoulis and Associates Pty Ltd   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 








 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 100/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

8 PINE STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

26 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/260/GE

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Section 96 - modifications the creation of attic rooms with ensuites and the provision of skylight windows within the roof areas of the townhouses, amendments to the basement level floor plan, minor adjustments to floor levels, and modifications to the approved window details and external finishes on the northern and southern elevations for 8 Pine Street, Randwick 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 19/11/2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans.

3.  Director's Report to Council's Ordinary Meeting of 23/07/2002 on the original development application    

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 

 


 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

19 November, 2002

FILE NO:

02/00260/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to approved multi unit housing development to amend the basement floor plan, make minor adjustments to floor levels, add attic rooms with ensuites and skylight window to the roof areas, and alter window details and external finishes 

PROPERTY:

 8 Pine Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 M Bowie Constructions Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council

 

The original development application to demolish the existing dwelling house and garage on the site and to construct and strata subdivide a multi unit housing development comprising 5 three-bedroom townhouse dwelling, basement parking, and two swimming pools was approved by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 23 July 2002.

 

The subject application proposes modifications to the approved development including, the creation of attic rooms with ensuites and the provision of skylight windows within the roof areas of the townhouses, amendments to the basement level floor plan, minor adjustments to floor levels, and modifications to the approved window details and external finishes on the northern and southern elevations.

 

The application was notified and advertised and one submission was received. The concern raised relates to the proposed increase in floor space ratio of the approved development by the addition of the attic rooms.

 

The proposed modifications do not alter the approved envelope, height, bulk or massing of the development or generate any additional demand for car parking under Council’s Parking DCP.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

Approval is sought to modify the design of the approved development as follows:

 

-     the creation of attic rooms with ensuites within the roof space of each town house, including the provision of skylight windows  

-     modifications to the basement floor plan to provide a games/study room connected by an internal stair to Townhouse No.5, an enlarged garbage store, a garden store and electrical services room

-     minor adjustments to floor levels without altering the approved roof ridge height of the building 

-     modifications to window details and external finishes on the north and south elevations

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the north-eastern corner of Pine Street and Park Avenue.  The subject property is regularly shaped and has a frontage to Pine Street of 19.05m, a frontage to Park Avenue of 45.11m and a total site area of 868.5sq.m.  The subject site is relatively flat, with a slight fall to the west, and the ground level of the site is lower than the level of the street.  The site presently contains a single dwelling house, garage and swimming pool.

 

The immediate locality is characterised by residential development of varying densities and heights.  To the west of the site is a two storey residential flat building with basement parking, and to the east of the site are a mix of single residential dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.  Opposite the site to the north are older style red brick three and four storey residential flat buildings, and adjoining the site to the south is a single storey dwelling house. 

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original development application to demolish the existing dwelling house and garage on the site and to construct and strata subdivide a multi unit housing development comprising 5 three-bedroom townhouse dwelling, basement parking, and two swimming pools was approved by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 23 July 2002.

 

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

 

Ian Berson

for Body Corporate

6 Pine Street

RANDWICK 2031

 

Concerns:

-     the proposal will result in an exceedance of the 0.65:1 FSR standard applying to development on the site

 

6.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

-     State Environmental Planning Policy No.1-Development Standards

-     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-     Building Code of Australia

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned Residential 2B 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

31 - Landscape Area

50% of the site area

 

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

 

61.5% of total site area provided as landscaped area

 

58% of landscaped area above podium

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

No change. SEPP 1 objection previously considered under original application.

 

 

32 – FSR

0.65:1

 

 

 

0.885:1 including attic floor space and basement games room/study (0.65:1 approved)

No. See section 8.1.

33 - Building Height

Overall maximum  height 9.5m

 

 

External Wall height

 

 

 

9.35m (unchanged)

 

 

 

Max..9.2m to top of gable ends, 6.723m main building (unchanged)

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Ht of building unchanged. SEPP 1 for departure by gable ends previously considered under original application

 

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

No

N/A

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

No

N/A

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

 

Yes. Satisfactory

 

6.1  Policy Controls

a.     Development Control Plan –Multi Unit Housing

b.    Development Control Plan –Parking

 

7.         SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

7.1       Substantially the same

The proposal does not alter the approved envelope, height, bulk, and massing or parking provision of the development and is considered to constitute substantially the same development.

 

7.2       Consideration of submissions

 

An assessment of the floor space ratio of the proposal is made under section 8 below.

 

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 Space Ratio (FSR)

 

A 0.65:1 FSR standard applies to multi unit housing development in the 2B zone. The development as approved has an FSR of 0.65:1. The development as proposed has a FSR of 0.885:1 as the attic rooms and basement games room constitutes additional floor space.

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons in support of the proposed departure from the 0.65:1 FSR standard:

 

-     The proposal will improve the amenity of the subject property without causing adverse effects to neighbouring properties.

-     There will be no increase in building massing, height or bulk.

-     There will be no adverse effects on privacy.

-     There will be no increase in shadow impacts on adjoining properties.

-     There will be no impact on views.

-     There will be no adverse impact on the streetscape.

-     The car parking provided for the development satisfies the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

-     The proposal will result in a small increase in landscaped area not on structure.

-     The proposal is consistent with urban consolidation objectives.

 

The purpose of the floor space standards as stated in Randwick LEP 1998 is:

 

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

 

The proposal does not alter the height, bulk or building massing of the approved development as the additional floor space is contained within the approved envelope of the building. No additional impacts by way of overlooking, overshadowing or view loss will be occasioned to neighbouring properties. The proposal does not generate any additional demand for car parking under Council’s DCP-Parking

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives for development in the 2B zone in that it provides for a medium density housing form that does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential development and remains compatible with the character of existing development in the area. 

 

Therefore, having regard to the merits of the proposal, the departure from the 0.65:1FSR standard is considered acceptable. 

 

8.2       Design and External Appearance

 

The proposed enlarged louvred window openings to the northern and southern gable end walls and the introduction of skylight windows to the eastern roof plane of the approved building will provide improved articulation to the building’s street elevations by breaking up the visual expanse of these walls and the roof area. The removal of the approved mini-corrugated metal cladding to the northern and southern gable ends to accommodate the enlarged louvred window openings will not detract from the visual appearance of the development from the adjacent street frontages.  

 

A heritage list property at No.11a Pine Street is located to the south east of the site, however it is not in close proximity. The approved development and proposed external changes to its elevations will not have any adverse impact upon that property.

 

8.3       Amenity Impacts

8.3.1    Privacy and Overlooking

 

The proposed skylight windows in the western roof plane facing the boundary with the adjoining town house development at No.6 Pine Street are positioned high on the roof area thereby eliminating any potential for overlooking.  The proposed enlarged louvred window openings in the northern and southern gable end walls of the building are to a stairwell accessing the attic level only and will not adversely impact on the privacy of neighbouring development.

 

8.3.2    Overshadowing

 

No additional overshadowing of neighbouring properties will be occasioned by the proposal, as there is no change in the approved envelope, height or bulk of the building.

 

8.3.3    Views

 

No loss of views will be occasioned to neighbouring properties by the proposal.

 

8.4       Parking

 

The proposed amendments to the basement floor level do not alter the approved level of turning/manoeuvring access within the car parking area of the development.

 

As the approved townhouses have three bedrooms, the use of the proposed attic rooms for a fourth bedroom would not generate any additional demand for car parking under Council’s DCP-Parking.

 

The proposal is acceptable in this regard.  

 

8.5       Strata Subdivision

 

The amended strata plan submitted with the application is consistent with the approved development and proposed modifications.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed introduction of attic floor space for each townhouse and games/study for Townhouse No.5 at the basement floor level results in a departure from the 0.65:1 FSR standard applying to development on the site. However, these amendments do not alter the approved building envelope, height, bulk, massing or car parking demand of the development and are considered acceptable.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.02/00260/GE on property No.8 Pine Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

·    Amend Development Consent Condition No.1 to read:

 

“1.  The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA-01, DA-02, DA-03A, DA-04, DA-05, DA-07, DA-08, DA-09, DA-10, DA-11, LA01, undated and received by Council on 28 March 2002 as amended by the additional details received 1 May 2002, and further amended by plans numbered CC-01-10 Revisions C dated 29 September 2002 and dated as received by Council on 2 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.”

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

-A4 configurations

-Copy of Director's report to Council's Ordinary meeting of 23 July 2002 on the original development application     

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 101/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

102 - 106 Brook Street, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

27 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0295/2000 'C'

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for modification of the existing multi-unit development, including the erection of an additional two units to Block A and the conversion of a studio to a one bedroom unit to Block B for 102 – 106 Brook Street, Coogee for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 18 November 2002.

2.  A4 configuration plans 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

18 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D0295/2000

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to provide two additional units to Block A and convert a one bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit to Block B.

PROPERTY:

 102-106 Brook St Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Randwick Rugby Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as Council determined the original application.

 

The section 96 modification primarily relates to the addition of two residential units to Block A and the conversion of a studio unit to a one bedroom unit to Block B.

 

The primary issues of the application are whether the bulk and scale of the proposed development will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and view loss.

 

The total cost of the development associated with the proposed modification is $1.4million.

 

The modification is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the modification of the existing multi-unit development including the erection of an additional two units to Block A and the conversion of a studio to a one bedroom unit to Block B.

 

The additional two dwellings are to be provided to the roof areas of Block A and shall be located between the plant rooms to level 4. The first additional unit is a two-bedroom unit, which is to be split between the 3rd and 4th floors of the southern perimeter of block A. The second additional unit is a one bedroom unit to be contained to the 4th floor at the northern end of the block.

 

To level 5 of Block B an existing studio unit is to be extended and converted to a one bedroom unit.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

            The site is located on the western side of Brook Street, between Dolphin St and Ormond Garden and is opposite the western end of Coogee Oval. The site sits between two heritage items – “Lachlan”, circa early 1900s, a four storey Federation era flat building at 108 Brook St and three two storey Edwardian style semis, circa 1915, at 90 – 100 Brook St.

 

            The site consists of three lots: Lot 2 DP 560526, Lot 1 DP 89101 and Lot 1 DP 219231 and is known as 104 Brook St. The site currently contains the partially constructed multi-unit and club development.

 

            The site is rectangular, with a 40.175m frontage to Brook Street and a depth of about 101m. Site area is 4081m2. The site falls 7.13m from the rear to the Brook Street frontage. Behind the Brook Street frontage, the site adjoins older style residential development fronting Ormond Garden, Glenwood Avenue and Dolphin Street.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.   APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Consent No. 295/2000 was issued on 26 February 2001 for demolition of the existing club building and erection of a 5 and 6 storey building comprising new club premises with gaming lounge, café/bistro and function room facilities, and 50 residential dwelling units. A Section 96 application was further approved on 26 October 2001 for deletion of Condition No. 80 relating to the height of the loading dock. A second Section 96 application was lodged on the 28 December 2001 relating to the reduction in the overall area to be excavated to allow for additional landscaped areas. This application was approved by Council on 12 March 2002.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1       Objections

 

K Collier & C Evans

C/o Coogee Bay Precinct Committee

90 Dolphin St Coogee

 

·    Changes made under section 96 should be  minor. These changes are not minor and should be put forward in a new development application.

 

Comment

 

Legal advice was received from Council’s solicitors Bowen and Gerathy in relation to this matter. Legal advice confirmed that the proposed changes could be assessed as a Section 96 Modification to the original consent as the proposed modification constituted substantially the same development as that originally approved.

 

·    The notification was misleading with the second letter not stating that the original notification letter was no longer valid.

 

Comment

 

The original notification letter was issued with an incorrect description of the approved development. A new notification letter was sent correcting the detail of the approval.

 

·    The proposed changes to the development will have an invasive impact on this property.

 

Comment

 

The development as is being constructed has an impact on the amenity of the private open space to the rear of No. 90 Dolphin St. It is however considered that the additional units which are to be located to the rear of Block A and the altered unit to the rear of Block B will not have a direct impact on No. 90 Dolphin St. The sightlines and distance between habitable windows is too great to result in direct overlooking. However, in order to reduce overlooking to other properties to the North of Block A, the balustrade should be conditioned to be of a non-transparent material to reduce overlooking from within the adjoining habitable rooms. Further a privacy screen shall be required to the western end of the terrace of this unit to further restrict sightlines.

 

·    Increased density will have an adverse impact on the traffic and parking in an already popular area.

 

Comment

 

The application has been referred to Assets and Infrastructure Services for comment. The approved parking component of the development satisfactorily provides for parking for the additional units. The additional two units and varied design for a third unit is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the overall traffic generation of the development or it is likely that it would over burden the parking capacity of the locality

 

·    The proposed development is an over-development of the site exceeding Council’s planning controls.

 

Comment

 

The proposed development was approved with substantial variations from the planning controls. These variations were the subject of the original assessment. The proposed amendments are contained within the approved built form and as such the height controls are not being varied further. The additional dwellings will result in increased floor area however the increase of 0.05:1 is considered to be negligible and will not have a noticeable additional impact on the visual amenity of the area.

 

M McMahon

PO Box 506

COOGEE NSW 2034

 

·    “Maximising the floor space is such a selfish sort of architecture etc”

 

Comment

 

The additional floor area will not result in a development of excessive bulk and scale.  Furthermore, the increased floor space does not result in any adverse impacts on adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

J Herron

4/10 Glenwood Ave

COOGEE NSW 2034

 

·    The negative issues of the development are bulk, noise, ugliness and increasing traffic.

 

Comment

 

These issues were considered in the original application. It is considered that the amendments to the development are unlikely to result in further impact to building bulk, noise, aesthetics and increased traffic as the additions are of a minor nature and will not only create an extension to currently unused roof space adjoining plant equipment areas, which will not be readily visible nor result in any further adverse impact.

 

       V & C McGregor

14/114-116 Brook St

Coogee

 

·    Loss of view.

 

The proposed additional units will not affect the views currently enjoyed by unit no. 14 as the additional floor area to Block B will be contained on the roof level of the existing building and will not increase the height of the development. It is considered that the objection has been raised in relation to the original development as approved where there could have been resultant loss of locality views however the current proposal is will not result in any additional view loss.

 

·    Additional noise. 

 

Comment

 

The addition of two new dwellings and the increase in density of one other unit is unlikely to result in any additional acoustic impacts from that already anticipated from the approved density.

 

Kevin Bradley

108 Brook St

Coogee

 

·    Concerns with an incorrect notification letter

 

Comment

 

This letter was noted and the notification letter corrected with the period for acceptance of submission extended by a further fortnight.

 

AJ & CA Rowles

1/77 Dolphin St

Coogee

 

·    Concerns for parking constraints due to popularity of the area.

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously discussed within this report. The proposed carpark provides for a total number of 73 carspaces, 1 in excess of the total number of spaces required under Council DCP-Parking, and as such it is considered that the demand for carparking generated by the development will be accommodated on site.

 

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       Traffic/Parking Issues

 

Traffic Comments

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted parking study and reports as follows:

 

The total parking provided of 72 spaces satisfies Council’s DCP-Parking with breakdown as follows:

 

 5 studios                          = 5/2            =          2.5

15 x 1 bedroom units       = 15x1         =        15

22 x 2 bedroom units       = 22 x 1.2    =        26.4

10 x 3 bedroom units       = 10 x 1.5    =        15

Visitor                               =    52 x ¼ =        13

·    Total parking required                    =   72 spaces

·    Total parking provided                   =   73 spaces

 

Although the overall parking satisfies Council’s DCP-Parking the proposal has a shortfall in visitor parking and accordingly to satisfy all components of parking, the spaces should be allocated as follows:

 

·    60 residential

·    13 visitor spaces  

 

The bicycle parking is considered satisfactory.

 

The EPCD Department to determine whether 13 of the 73 residential parking spaces should be allocated as visitor parking spaces as detailed in the traffic engineer’s comments.

 

The EPCD Department is advised that the original AIS Department report for the proposed development is still applicable to this Section 96 application.

 

Heritage Issues

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the follow comments:

 

The site is prominently located in Brook Street opposite the end of Coogee Oval and is clearly visible from Coogee Beach.  Adjacent to the site are several heritage items, nos.90-100 Brook Street, a group of two storey Edwardian semi-detached dwellings, and no.108 Brook Street, a Federation style residential flat building.

 

Refer to my previous memo dated 25 January 2001 for background to the application.  My earlier memos raised concerns in relation to the scale, bulk, massing and setbacks of the proposal in relation to nearby heritage items and neighbouring development.  Amended drawings were received which reduced the height of the building at the front of the site from five levels to four levels, and redesigned the front façade of the proposed building.  It was considered that these changes addressed my earlier concerns and the application was approved subject to a number of consent conditions.

 

A section 96 application has now been received which proposes to provide additional units to the building.  Additional units are to be provided at the rear of the front building, in the north and the south corner, and at the rear of the rear building, in the south corner.

 

The proposed changes will increase the height of the proposal in relation to development to the south by two levels in relation to the building at the front of the site and by one level in relation to the building at the rear of the site.  The proposed changes will increase the height of the proposal in relation to development to the north by one level on relation to the building at the front of the site.  It is noted that the heritage item to the south, “Lachlan” has a height of four storeys, while the heritage items to the north are two storeys in height.  The additional height to the building at the front of the site is generally set back from the side elevations.  There will be no increase in height of the front elevation of the building to Brook Street, and the increased height to the side elevations will not be prominent from the street.

 

It is considered that the amended proposal will remain compatible with the height of adjacent developments and will not detract from their prominence in the streetscape.  There are no heritage objections to the height and design of the new sections of the building.

 

7.         MASTERPLAN REQUIREMENTS

 

The requirement for the submission of a master plan under Clause 40A of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, as amended was waived for this site on the grounds that adequate controls apply to the land in accordance with Clause 40A.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

0.9:1

1.55:1

No

33 - Building Height

12m

17.1m

No

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Heritage comments have been provided in relation to the proposed amendments

 

(b)  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

Principle 1: Context

 

The overall design of the development was approved under the original application and ensured the development related to the surrounding context of Brook St. The amended design providing additional units which effectively integrate with  the approved building is considered to be consistent and in keeping with the approved design. The development has been professionally designed by GSA Architects, and is consistent with SEPP 65 in terms of its general approach to the site and uses contained within the building.

 

Principle 2: Scale

 

The bulk of the development is consistent with the built form and scale of the approved development. The modifications and additional floor area will not increase the apparent scale of the development as the additional units are integrated within the existing envelope.

 

Principle 3: Built Form

 

The additional dwellings to the roof top of the two blocks is considered to be in keeping with the design of the approved development blocks. Whilst the dwellings are utilising existing roof area within the existing envelope it is considered that the overall articulation of the development will be maintained as per the built form originally approved.

 

Principle 4: Density

 

The density of the development was approved substantially over the maximum permissible FSR. It is considered that the additional FSR of 0.05:1 is not a significant increase in the context of the approved density. Given that the additional floor area is incorporated within the overall height of the development it is considered that the apparent scale and bulk of the development will not be detrimentally increased by this development.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The additional units will be a minimal increase in the number of dwellings within the development and will fit within the overall height and footprint of the development. As such it is considered that there will be no additional demand or impact on energy and water efficiency to the development and adjoining properties.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

 

The additional units will be integrated within the existing footprint of the development such that there will be no loss of landscaped areas. Private and communal open space is provided within the existing development sufficient to support the additional 3 dwellings.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

 

The additional units will not detract from the overall amenity of the development for the existing number of units. There is sufficient private open space provided for the new units to ensure residential amenity is acceptable.

 

Principle 8: Safety and Security

 

Safety and security will not be detrimentally impacted by the provision of an additional 3 dwellings.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

 

The additional units proposed will complement the existing housing stock in the area in a location that will not significantly affect existing amenity for surrounding residents.

 

The development has considered the social context of the site and provides a mix of units that meets the existing and future needs of the community. The development will support the existing businesses in the area by increasing the number of local residents. The development is consistent with principle 9.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

The additional units have been designed to integrate with the approved built form. It is considered that the additional units will be of a design consistent with the other floors providing additional visual interest through providing new openings to the northern and western elevations and utilising void areas concealing visually intrusive plant room.

 

Three-dimensional illustrations of the proposal have indicated that the overall amended form and detailing of the building are appropriate. It is considered that the additional units will relate appropriately to the approved building design.

 

The proposal has been reviewed with regard to the design principles and is considered satisfactory with regard to the provisions of SEPP 65.

 

c)   Local Environmental Planning Instrument’s and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

 

The changes to the approved building result in an increase in the FSR from 1.5:1 to 1.55:1 for the development, which exceeds the development standard of 0.9:1.

 

As the application is a Section 96 modification to the development consent, a SEPP 1 objection is not required. This increase in FSR of the proposal beyond the statutory control is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·          The additional increase represents an overall increase of 3% for the FSR for the site. This increase will have a negligible impact.

 

·          There is no increase in the overall height of the building and as such will have a minimal impact on bulk and overshadowing.

 

·          It is considered that the objectives of controlling mass are satisfied.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan No. Multi-Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance solutions)

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1            The front setback consistent  with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2            Ensure that:

solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

Landscaping and private open space provided.

Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Front setbacks are not altered by this proposal as the amendments are contained within the existing building’s footprint.

 

 

 

The side boundary setbacks are within the footprint/envelope of the approved development such that there is no new encroachment closer to the side boundaries.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setback

P3            Ensure that:

solar access and overshadowing minimised.

Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

Building built across site.

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

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

 

 

Rear setbacks are not altered by this proposal as the amendments are contained within the existing building’s footprint.

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

The building bulk is considered to be greater than the surrounding building bulk however the increase as a result of the amendments of 0.05:1 is minimal such that the additional increase in density is considered to not have any additional impact.

 

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1            Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

The landscaped area for this development is not to be altered by the additional units as the footprint of the buildings will not be increased.

 

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3           

Provides privacy.

is accessible from main living areas.

 

 

 

Private open space has been provided to the additional units in the form of terraces. Adequate area is provided to the studio unit to block B and the two bedroom unit to block A however insufficient area is provided to the one bedroom unit to block A. This variation of 4sqm is considered to be acceptable for a one bedroom unit.

 

 

Flats and apartments

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

PRIVACY

 

Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Given the height of the additional window and terrace areas it is considered unlikely that there will be any privacy impacts as a result of this development to adjoining properties. There will be limited opportunity for direct sightlines

 

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

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

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

There are no anticipated loss of views as a result of the amendments as the additional floor area and bulk is contained below the approved maximum height.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

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

P1.2 Living areas of neighbour’s sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

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

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

 

 

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that additional shadow cast from the minimal increase in built upon area will have a negligible increase of impact to neighbouring properties. The indicated additional shadow will fall to No. 108 Brook St consistent with the approved shadow diagrams.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

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

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

 

There are no concerns for safety and security impacts as a result of the additional units.

 

PARKING

 

 

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

 

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

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

 

Parking has been raised previously within this report. The proposed number of spaces achieves the preferred solution of 72 spaces. It is recommended to satisfy further the provision of the parking DCP that the spaces be allocated at 60 resident spaces and 13 visitor spaces.

 

 

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

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5 spaces required.

 

15 spaces required.

 

26.4 spaces required.

 

15 spaces required

 

 

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

13 spaces required.

 

Total = 72, 73 provided.

 

9.         SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification is considered to be in keeping with the established design principles of the existing development application. Whilst there is an increase in the number of units provided, given that the overall design, height, bulk and scale of the development and the way in which the building is to be used is not being altered, the proposed development as modified is considered to be substantially the same to that originally approved.

 

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

The issues raised as part of the submissions have been discussed previously within the report.

 

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     Height

 

The proposed infill additions to blocks A & B will be contained within the overall height of the approved development. The additional height to block A will be to the rear of the block and will be below the highest point of the roof of this building. The addition within Block B will also be located to the rear of the building and will also be of a height matching the highest point to this building.

 

10.2     Density

 

The proposed infill additions will increase the FSR of the site by 3%. The justifications provided for the variations from the development standard are considered reasonable and the increase so minimal that it is considered to have a negligible impact. The modified density of the development is not considered to result in an adverse impact to either the amenity of surrounding properties or the streetscape of Brook St, Ormond Gardens or Dolphin Street.

 

 

10.3     Privacy and Overshadowing

 

In respect to privacy, the additional dwellings will be sited on the roof adjoining existing units and ancillary plant room’s areas.

 

The additional apartment in Block A has one window along the western side elevation to bedroom No. 2 and is set-in further than the adjoining 3 bedroom units reducing any potential for overlooking.  Likewise the unit in block B is set in from the southern boundary and has a window to the kitchen along this elevation.  The only area of concern is the new terrace to the north facing unit in Block A. 

 

It is recommended by the way of a condition to include a privacy screen along the terrace to minimise potential impacts.  The new units are situated on the roof and elevated above adjoining properties.  As such it is unlikely for direct overlooking to occur but rather will aim to capture distant area and any ocean views.  Shadow diagrams were submitted with the application and considering the units will be centrally located and will not increase the approved overall height the additional shadow cast will not create serious solar access concerns to immediately adjoining properties.

 

10.4     Parking

 

The proposed number of parking spaces achieves the requirements of Council’s DCP –Parking. However, the allocation of these spaces is not in accordance with the rate of residential to visitors spaces required by the DCP. Based on a recommendation by Council’s Traffic Engineer the original condition of consent imposed requiring the allocation of the parking spaces to achieve the provisions of the DCP shall be retained in the development consent.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the original consent are considered to be of a minor nature having regard to the approved built form of the two buildings and the development as a whole. The additional two units and increase in density of one of the units is considered to be a sympathetic and subtle infill that will have negligible impact. The variation to the applicable development standard of FSR is considered acceptable and achieves the objectives of the control.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 295/00 for Section 96 modification to provide two additional units to Block A and convert a one bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit to Block B. at 102-106 Brook St Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

Vary Condition No. 1 to read:

 

“1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 01 B – DA 15 B, dated 6.12.2000 and received by Council on 12 .12 .2001, as amended by drawings SK 01 and SK 02, dated Jan 2001 and received by Council on 22.01.2001 and shadow diagrams numbered DA 23 A and DA 24 A, dated 22 .01.2001 and received by Council on 22.01.2001, as amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plan numbered 01-063 SK003 G dated October 2001 and received by Council on 24 December 2001, and Section 96 ‘C’ plans numbered SK2001-2002, SK2012-13, SK2023, SK3011, SK3021, SK3113, SK3115, SK3123, SK3123, A6000, -6002 dated 19/09/02 and received by Council on 19 September 2002 and the a7pplication form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be varied by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans”.

 

            Vary Condition No. 5 to read:

 

“5.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)   for the provision or improvement of open space        $88,960.86

b)   for the provision or improvement of community facilities

                                                                                    $39,103.84

c)   Administration fee $425.00                                             $425.00

 

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

 

Add Condition No. 124

 

124      The balustrade to the terrace provided to the northern facing unit to Block A is to be constructed of opaque or obscure glass to reduce overlooking to the neighbouring properties to the North. Details shall be provided as part of the construction certificate.

 

Add Condition No. 125

 

125      A 1800mm privacy screen be provided to the western perimeter of the terrace to the northern unit proposed to Block A, and shall be constructed of a form that is consistent and in keeping with the approved building schedule of colours and materials proposed for the development Details shall be provided as part of the construction certificate.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONEMTNAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 102/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

3 CROMWELL PLACE, MALABAR

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0928/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 928/2002 for new garage with terrace over to the front of an existing dwelling house 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 25/11/2002

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

25 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/928/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 New Garage with terrace over to the front of an existing dwelling house.

PROPERTY:

 3 Cromwell Place Malabar

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Classic Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Michael Daley, John Procopiadis, Dominic Sullivan.

 

The applicant proposes to construct a brick rendered garage with roof terrace to the front of an existing dwelling house at 3 Cromwell Place Malabar.  Assessment of the application indicates that the proposal does not satisfy the objectives, preferred solutions and performance requirements of Sections 4.4 Building Setback and 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways of the Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

It is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposed structure will have an adverse impact on the predominantly open streetscape of Cromwell Place. Furthermore the proposed garage and terrace would set an undesirable precedent for future residential development in the locality.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to construct a garage with roof terrace above to the front of the existing dwelling house.  The proposed garage will be approximately 4.99metres wide by approximately 4.479metres deep and will be setback from the street approximately 1.13 metres. The garage and terrace will have a total height of approximately 3.82 metres.  In addition, the applicant proposes to install a gate providing access into the side yard, between the garage and the front fence.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Cromwell Place, between Anzac Parade and Franklin Street. The property is an irregular shaped allotment, which slopes from the rear downwards towards the street, and has a street frontage of approximately 26.26 metres and a depth of approximately 43.865 metres. The total area of the site is approximately 600 square metres.  Currently a single storey dwelling house with single garage under and a 1.8 metre high solid brick front fence are located on the site.

 

Cromwell Place is a one-way street containing three dwelling houses and is opposite Pioneers Park.  Adjoining to the west is a part two/ part three storey dwelling house fronting Anzac Parade.  To the east of the site is a two storey dwelling house currently under construction.  Adjoining this house is a two storey dwelling with garage under which fronts both Cromwell Place and Franklin Street.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

Local Approval 628/1997 to carry out external and internal alterations to the existing dwelling house including, rear addition, 1.8 metre high front fence and front pergola structure over driveway.  It was approved on 22 July 1997 subject to a condition deleting the front pergola structure.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998 on 8 October 2002. 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       Engineering Issues

 

Councils Department of asset and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments:

 

‘An application has been received for the construction of a new garage in front of the existing garage at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

There is one tree, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a)   One (1) Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush) located within the front yard of the site. This tree is approximately 5-6 metres tall and is in good health. This tree should be retained as part of this application. Permission should be granted for the selective pruning of overhanging branches from this tree to allow for the proposed garage construction.

 

Traffic/parking comments

It is noted that the issued design alignment level at the property boundary for the new driveway/garage is 600mm above the back of the existing layback. The EPCD Department to determine whether the slope of the proposed garage floor is acceptable’.

 

Councils Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services has included a number of conditions should approval be granted.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the subject site has an area of less then 4000 square metres, a master plan is not required.

 

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.1       Policy Controls

 

a.   Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

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.

 

 

 

No (See section 9.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

P4  Car parking areas and accessways facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA (Driveway Existing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA (Existing Driveway)

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

No (See section 9.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

4.4     Building Setbacks

 

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

 

The proposed garage and terrace does not meet the performance requirement, as it will be setback from the street by approximately 1.13metres and is not in alignment with the dominant front setback of the adjoining properties.

 

4.7     Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces.  Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

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.

 

Currently there is already a hardstand car space located to the front of the dwelling house. 

 

The proposed garage and terrace is a significant structure being approximately 3.82m high and located less than 1.5m from the street.  The excessive bulk and scale presented by the proposed garage and terrace to the street will adversely affect the predominantly open form and character of the streetscape.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed garage does not meet the objectives, performance requirements or preferred solution requirements of this section of the DCP.

 

 

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives, performance requirements or preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will breach the predominant building line of Cromwell Place and the overall bulk of the structure will detracted from the open form, character and appearance of the streetscape of Cromwell Place.  Furthermore the proposed garage and terrace would set an undesirable precedent for future residential development in the locality.

 

It is therefore recommended that the proposal not be supported.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. D/928/2002 for a New Garage with terrace over to the front of an existing dwelling house. at 3 Cromwell Place Malabar for the following reasons:-

 

1.   The location and design of the proposed garage and terrace do not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Sections 4.4 Building Setback and 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways of the Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

2.   The location and design of the proposed garage and terrace will result in a visually obtrusive element in the existing open streetscape of Cromwell Place.

 

3.   The proposal would set an unfavourable and undesirable precedent for further inappropriate car parking provision, which would considerably detract from the streetscape of Cromwell Place.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 103/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

194R ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK (SOUTHERN PORTION OF ALISON PARK)

 

 

DATE:

29 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0991/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 295/2000  to construct a new building containing a café, covered terrace and associated kitchen for 194R Alison Road, Randwick  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 21 November 2002

2.  A4 configuration plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0991/O2

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construct a new building containing a cafe, covered terrace and associated kitchen

PROPERTY:

 194R ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK (Southern portion of Alision Park)

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, as Randwick City Council is trustee of the subject site for development (Alison Park).

 

Council is seeking approval to construct a new building containing a café, seating on a covered terrace and associated kitchen, storage and toilet facilities within Alison Park at Randwick. The estimated cost of the works is $420,000.

 

The proposal meets the requirements for development of open space under the Randwick LEP and for restaurants on community land under DCP 20. The impact of the proposal with regard to heritage, character and streetscape objectives and impacts on surrounding uses has also been assessed and is considered satisfactory.

 

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

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The development proposes the construction of a new café and indoor/outdoor seating area adjoining the existing paved square at the southwestern corner of Alison Park. The building is L-shaped, consisting of a compact, solid service building and a covered terrace that has retractable doors which can be fully opened or closed depending on the weather.

 

The café service building incorporates a kitchen, garbage storage area and new disabled toilet (for use of patrons and staff) and has an area of approximately 33m2. The building is located at the southern end of the terrace seating and has been oriented to be parallel with Alison Road (perpendicular to the terrace). A mobile take-away counter with integral fridge/freezer and storage area will provide takeaway facilities and can be easily moved depending on spatial requirements. The café will be operated by two (2) staff, increasing to three (3) people during peak periods.

 

A paved terrace (elevated an average of 210mm above the level of the existing square) is proposed to provide a seating area and access to the café. The terrace has an area of 94m2. The slope of the land and siting of the building results in the terrace being accessed at grade when approached from the north and east. Stairs that accommodate the change in level extend along the western and southern elevations of the building. A large roof is proposed over the terrace seating area, which provides weather protection and shade for up to 40 seated patrons. Moveable chairs and tables provide flexibility for the arrangement of this space. The roof slopes from North to South being 5.13m above the existing paved square at the northern end and 3.83m above the existing paving at the southern end. The terrace area has been designed to generally have ‘open’ sides, however retractable glass doors along all sides allow the terrace to be protected during inclement weather. Annotations have been left off the plans indicating this provision, however the location of the doors has been confirmed with the applicant and their inclusion in the Construction Certificate plans has been proposed as a condition of consent (see condition 6).

 

The café will be open from 7.00am to 8.00pm seven days a week. The café will provide a range of reasonably priced meals and beverages and will not be licensed to serve alcohol on the premises.

 

The cafe building is to be constructed of jarrah timber cladding with copper capping. The roof structure over the terrace will be constructed of steel frame with metal roof cladding and moveable fine steel mesh screens inserted between the underside of the roof and approximately 2.4 metres above the terrace seating level to provide solar screening. Retractable door panels are proposed to the eastern and western sides below the level of the steel mesh. Paving to the terrace area is to be similar is colour and texture to the existing paving on the public square.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located within Alison Park, which is located on the northern side of Alison Road in Randwick. The park is rectangular in shape and is bounded by Abbey Street to the west, Frances Street to the north, The Avenue to the east and Alison Road to the south. The proposed development will occur in the southwestern corner of the park (close to Abbey Street and Alison Road).

 

The park has a total area of approximately 17,000m². The southern frontage (to Alison Road) is approximately 90m. The western frontage (to Abbey Street) measures approximately 195m. At the northern end of the park is a single storey child care centre. The rest of the park is comprised of landscaping with established trees and vegetation. A paved square exists along the Abbey Street boundary of the park and to the northern end of the square is a children’s playground.

 

The development site is located on the eastern edge of the paved square and is currently vacant, following the demolition of a toilet block and bus shelters. A prefabricated toilet and two bus stops have recently been located on Alison Road to replace the demolished facilities. To the northeast of the site are several large established conifers and to the south are mature fig trees lining Alison Road. The site slopes from north to south, resulting in a change in level between the northern and southern end of the site of approximately 430mm.

 

Alison Park forms part of the St Jude’s Heritage Conservation Area and several heritage items exist in the streets bordering the park, most notably the Randwick Presbyterian Church on the corner of Alison Road, Cook and Abbey Streets, 191 and 193 Alison Road and the ‘Avonmore Terrace’ at 26-42 The Avenue.

 

The character of the area is comprised of a range of development types and architectural styles. This is reflective of the surrounding business, special uses and residential zones in the area. Along Alison Road, development is generally of a larger scale and supports predominantly commercial uses. Notable exceptions are Marcellin College to the southeast of the site on Alison Road and the Randwick Presbyterian Church, on the corner of Alison Road Cook and Abbey Streets to the west of the site.

 

Behind the site at the intersection of The Avenue and Alison Road is Randwick police station and further along The Avenue to the north are large attached terrace houses. St Jude’s Church, cemetery and preschool are also located on The Avenue at some distance from the subject site. Further to the north and west of the site, are small to medium scale residential uses fronting Frances Street and Cook Street. Further to the south and east are commercial and special uses extending to Avoca Street and Belmore Road.

 

4.         HISTORY

 

4.1       Site History

 

Alison Park was dedicated for public recreation on February 4, 1876. Previous development applications relating to the park generally involve the erection of structures or the use of the park for special events. An application for demolition of the existing toilets and bus shelter to the southwest of the site was recently approved by Council and these structures have now been demolished. There is no further history relevant to the subject site for this application.

 

4.2       Application History

 

The application was lodged on 21 October, 2002. Due to Council’s involvement in the project the application has been assessed by external consultants. There is no other relevant application history.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Council canvassed residents immediately surrounding the park in May 2002 regarding the concept of including a café in the facilities available to patrons of Alison Park. Residents were asked to provide feedback on the idea. In response seven (7) submissions were received.

 

The responses were generally in full support of the provision of a café in the park. One resident was supportive but raised concern that the café would exacerbate current parking and traffic congestion. A meeting was held with the Randwick Precinct Committee and a written response received supporting the concept of a café and highlighting the potential for increased litter. The Precinct Committee suggested rubbish reduction measures such as using non-disposable plates and cups where practical.

 

The Randwick Presbyterian Church responded to the notification and were concerned regarding parking, noise from the café (requesting no amplified music be played during church services) and also requested that alcohol not be consumed by patrons of the café. The submission also noted that the church has recently spent a large sum of money to repair building damage done by pigeons and to prevent birds nesting and roosting on the church. The café use raises concern as it represents a potential additional food source for the birds. Additional rubbish receptacles and signs requesting that people using the park do not feed the birds may be two ways of discouraging the birds from the vicinity of the church building.

 

Two (2) of the submissions were in strong opposition to the café, one in relation to noise, parking and traffic impacts of the cafe. The other opposed the demolition of the existing toilet block and bus shelter, preferring an upgrade of these public facilities or use as a storage shed and noting dissatisfaction with the new glazed bus shelter and unisex toilet facility. This submission was also concerned about congestion that may be caused by the café patrons using the park, and reduction of the ‘public amenity’ this use may cause.

 

The current proposal has been notified by letter to surrounding properties and advertised in the local newspaper, in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.1       Objections

 

The application was open for comment between 5 and 19 November 2002. Four (4) submissions were received as a result of the notification period.

 

1.    Randwick Presbyterian Church Committee of Management, corner of Alison Road and Cook Street, Randwick

 

§ The Committee wishes to reiterate previous concerns regarding the café.

§ Amplified music should not be played from 8.00am to 11.30am and 5.00pm and 8.00pm Sundays to minimise any impact during Church services.

§ Request the right to have any amplified music turned off during irregular services such as weddings or funerals.

§ It is noted that the café will not be selling alcohol, however BYO should also be banned.

§ The terrace and take-away facility proposed will provide an additional source of food to birds and the rats that are present in and around Alison Park.

 

A condition of consent requiring that music be kept to background levels and the submission of a detailed waste management plan to minimise waste and vermin (see conditions 9 and 21). The licensing of the premises will be subject to a separate application and does not form part of the matters for consideration in this assessment. A condition of consent requiring a separate application to the relevant authority for licensing of the premises (including for BYO facilities) has been included in the recommendation (see condition 3).

 

2.    Paul Chilcott, PO Box 172, St Paul’s

 

§ Conflict of interest as Council is key stakeholder. Application should be withdrawn and re-application be subject to assessment by Planning NSW or neighbouring Council.

§ Council’s funds will be diverted away from more deserving uses in favour of a café where there is already sufficient provision. Inappropriate activity for local government.

§ Financial risks associated with vacancy if a suitable operator cannot be found. Project feasibility is needed.

 

Council has engaged external consultants to make an assessment of the application against Council’s requirements. Council is the relevant consent authority for the application. The provision of the café in the Park is considered to be viable given its location nearby to the children’s playground and the separation of the Park from nearby commercial facilities by major roadways.

 

3.    Alix Verge and Jon Lang, 3 Abbey Street, Randwick

 

§ Generally in favour of the café use

§ Parking is of major concern, due to the surrounding uses and potential popularity of the café near the children’s playground

§ Request that the development consent include conditions to increase the number of residents’ parking scheme spaces along Abbey Street, where there is only one off street parking space for 16 dwellings and;

§ Reduce the permissible stay in residents’ parking spaces from current 2 hour limit to resident parking only as has been done around Camp Cove. This would allow greater ability to monitor illegally parked vehicles.

 

The recommendations are outside the scope of this application. The issue of traffic and parking is discussed in detail in section 9.3 of this report and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

4.    Randwick Precinct Committee, c/- 2 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ No objection in principle to proposed café, so long as Council can legally grant consent

§ Concern regarding use of the premises for “civic functions”. Any use of the premises other than a café should be required to be subject to separate application and Council should impose conditions to this effect.

§ Urge Council to introduce a Plan of Management for Alison Park to clarify clear objectives for its future use.

 

The use of the café for public functions is legitimate and will not interfere with the public benefit derived from the park or café. The use of the café for private functions will not be allowed under condition 5 to allow equity of access to the café facilities.

 

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       Manager of Building Services

 

The Manager of Building Services has raised no objection to the proposal, and has recommended a number of standard conditions be attached to any approval.

 

 

6.2       Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

Council’s Director of Assets & Infrastructure has provided the following comment:

 

An application has been received for construction of a building with terraced roof area within Alison Park for the use as a Café which includes an area to be classed as outdoor seating.

 

Café Seating Comments

 

As advised by Council’s Manager of Assets the area classed as outdoor seating (i.e. the area outside the line delineated by the proposed bi-fold doors) will be the subject of a separate license agreement between the applicant and Council.

 

Drainage Comments

 

The applicant is to drain the site stormwater to Council’s kerb and gutter in Alison Road.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is one (1) tree, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works:

 

(a)        One (1) Cupressus sempervirens (Pencil Pine) located within the park, closest to the proposed development. This tree is approximately 6-8 metres and is poor condition. As such permission is granted for the removal of this tree.

 

NOTE: The removal of this tree may not be needed and only applies if the applicant decides the tree needs to be removed.

 

Conditions imposed by the Assets and Infrastructure Department have been included in the proposed conditions of consent.

 

6.3       Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Officer has provided the following comment, as the site is located within the St Jude’s Heritage Conservation Area and is in the vicinity of several heritage items under LEP 98.

 

The Alison Park is located within the St Judes Conservation Area, and there are a number of heritage items in the vicinity including “Seabird” and “Glanmire” at nos.191 and 193 Alison Road opposite the subject site, the Presbyterian Church on the corner of Alison, Cook and Abbey Streets, and “Avonmore Terrace” at nos.26-42 The Avenue.

 

The application proposes the construction of a new café building at the southern end of the park, adjacent to Alison Road.  The site was formerly occupied by a bus shelter and amenities building which has now been demolished.  Two new prefabricated bus shelters have been provided to the Alison Road footpath and a new prefabricated toilet structure within the boundaries of the park.

 

The application has been accompanied by Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Hill Thalis which includes a section on Heritage.  The SEE notes that the proposed building is of modest scale and generally open structure, with verandahs and timber infill evoking traditional timber park structures.

 

The kitchen, garbage area and toilet will be accommodated in a more solid structure, screened by existing trees.  The seating for the café will be accommodated under an open verandah, with further weather protection provided by retractable doors.  The paving to verandah seating area will be similar to that of existing paving to the park.  The generally open design of the structure and the use of compatible materials will minimise its prominence in the park.  The location of the proposed building will define the edges of the paved square and circular seating area within the park, balancing the playground on the opposite edge, without interrupting diagonal views or circulation.  It is considered that the proposal will make a positive contribution to its setting in Alison Park and will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area or nearby heritage items.

 

A condition requiring the submission of details of materials and finishes suggested by Council’s heritage officer has been included in the recommendation.

 

6.4       Environmental Health

 

The Manager, Environmental Health has provided the following comment and suggested appropriate conditions of consent should the development be approved.

 

The proposal

 

Provides for the erection of a café building in Alison Park toward the Alison Road frontage. The park is bounded by Alison Road, The Avenue, Frances Street and Abbey Street.

 

BCA Classification:

Class 6 café

 

Background

 

There is no retail outlet currently positioned on the site. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial, a child care centre and a school. There is also a busy bus stop located in front of the proposed food outlet.

 

Key Issues

 

Due to the nature of the site and the experiences afforded to Council from similar developments, the key issues have been identified as;

 

§  Noise: the use of mechanical extraction units during and at the outskirts of the operating hours can be a nuisance. The use of the cool room and refrigerator motors 24/7 is likely to create a noise nuisance. This requires assessment and mitigating measures to be designed and certified accordingly. There may also be noise associated with patrons leaving the premises as no on site parking can be provided.

§  Mechanical ventilation details: details of (specifically design, type and stack height) of the extraction fans are to be submitted for approval. Consideration is to be given to the smoke and odour filtration components.

§  Waste Management Plan: This site is not difficult to access however the details of waste storage, recycling, disposal and bin cleaning facilities are to be included with the waste management plan

 

6.5       Community Development Officer – Disability Services

 

Council’s Community Development Officer – Disability Services has provided the following comment:

 

I have referred this DA to Russell Chudleigh, Education Officer at AQA, Chair of Randwick Disabled Persons Action Committee and member of Council’s Access Committee for comment. Russell considers that access issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the DA. My only comment is that hand rails be installed where the steps are placed to assist patrons with mobility problems.

 

The installation of appropriate handrails has been included as a condition of consent (see Condition 2).

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Alison Park has an approximate area of 17 000m2 and as such is subject to master planning requirements under LEP 98. A master plan has been adopted for the Park, however the development is considered to be of a minor nature, which is ancillary to the current use of the land for recreation. Under subclause 40A(2)(a) the master planning requirements may be waived if the development is minor and ancillary to the current use. Part A of the Recommendation proposes that Council as the consent authority waives the master planning requirement in this case pursuant to subclause 40A(2)(a).

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Open Space 6(A) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’ s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 have been considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

38 - Development in Open Space Zones

Council must consider the need for development and impact on enjoyment of open space

As per discussion below

Yes

43 – Heritage Item or Conservation Area

Must be taken into consideration in assessment

Not a heritage item, located in a heritage conservation area, and is in vicinity of heritage items.

Yes

 

cl.38– Development in Open Space Zones

 

Clause 38 of the RLEP requires Council to consider the following when considering a development on land zoned 6(A):

 

(a)       the need for the proposed development on that land, and

 

Currently cafes and retail food outlets are located on the southern side of Alison Road (across from the park) and along Belmore Road (to the southwest of the park). These food outlets are distanced from the park by busy Alison and Belmore Roads. Pedestrian and signalised crossings are located nearby the park, however a facility for purchasing a limited range of food and drinks, such as a café, will be of great benefit to park patrons, removing the need to traverse busy roads and interrupt a park visit. The inclusion of a café within the park will improve amenity by providing a greater range of facilities within the park. The café is located in close proximity to the public square and the children’s play area. This will allow flexibility in that the terrace may be used for civic functions related to the paved square and will allow parents to supervise their children in the playground while enjoying the café facilities.

 

(b)       whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

 

The development will make a positive contribution to the current recreational use of the land. The café will provide additional amenity to park patrons and will encourage greater use of the park without significantly reducing the area of land available for active and passive recreation uses.

 

(c)        the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

 

The proposal will contribute to the existing use of the park and will further encourage use of the park area. The design of the proposal is modest in scale and has been sited alongside the paved ‘square’ at the southwestern corner of the park. This is an appropriate location and further enhances the civic character of the paved square. The design of the café has limited the solid elements to the kitchen and storage areas and reflects the traditionally open architecture of park structures. This is appropriate to the location of the café in a Heritage Conservation Area and retains important vistas through the park from the public domain. The proposal is unlikely to result in the loss of any trees (however one conifer in poor condition may be removed if required) and will maintain the existing landscape character of the park. The vistas into the Park have been improved through the demolition of the old toilet block and bus shelter and will be further enhanced with the construction of the café.

 

(d)       the need to retain the land for its existing or likely future use.

 

The proposed café structure is modest in scale and is located in an area that was previously used for public toilet facilities and a bus shelter, which were both in poor condition. These facilities have now been relocated and the use of the land for a café will not restrict future use of the park area. The café is located nearby to the park entry from Alison Road, existing paved areas and children’s playground and is an appropriate location for a public café use, leaving the greater area of the park undeveloped. It is likely that the parcel of land will continue to be used for community open space in the future and the construction of the café will not detract from this use.

 

cl.43 – Development in a Heritage Conservation Area

cl.46 – Development in the vicinity of a Heritage Item

 

The site is located in the St Jude’s Heritage Conservation Area and is in the vicinity of several Heritage Items. Council’s Heritage officer has provided comment on the development and the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to its impact on the Heritage Conservation Area and nearby items. The development is satisfactory with regard to and clauses 43 and 46 of the RLEP98 (refer to section 6.3 of this report).

 

b.         SEPP 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous longstanding use of the site for open space purposes would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued recreational use.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

 

§ DCP 20 – Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land

§ DCP – Parking 1998

 

a.         DCP 20 – Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land

 

Development Control Plan 20 provides guidelines for the development of restaurants on public land. The requirements of the DCP generally focus on footpath seating for restaurants and balconies above the footpath.

 

In relation to restaurants on public land, the DCP provides that notification must take place in accordance with RLEP 98, which has occurred and that no additional off-street parking is required. The DCP requires that an assessment of the impact of the development be undertaken in accordance with the EP&A Act. The DCP also stipulates that the development should be sympathetic to the existing or proposed character of the area.

 

The matters for consideration under the Act and the compatibility of the development with the character of the area have been discussed in detail in section 9 of this report.

 

b.         Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking)

 

Restaurants on community land are not subject to an off-street parking requirement under Council’s DCP Parking.

 

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       The likely impacts of development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

 

Built Form

 

The proposed built form has been developed with consideration of the potential prominence of the structure both from within the park and surrounding streets. The solid timber clad café form is sited behind existing street trees on Alison Road. These trees provide screening. The verandah structure that covers the proposed terrace seating has been oriented north-south and is aligned to the park entry from Alison Road.

 

The height of the roof structure above the terrace and its fine metal detailing allows views through the cafe to the park beyond. The roof element follows the north-south slope of the land and reflects the gradient of the square. The roof overhangs the southern end of the terrace by 1.2m to emphasise the entry from Alison Road and overhangs the terrace to the north and east.

 

To the west the paved terrace becomes the dominant building element, projecting beyond the roof overhang towards the existing paved square. This integrates the building well with the existing paved square and continues the existing ground plane under the roof structure. The narrow edge of the terrace building adjoins the circular paving, which is offset from the paved square to break down the formality and provide a transition to the informal, open grassed area of the park. It is appropriate to have the shorter side of the building facing this less formal area. The siting of the terrace building achieves a good balance between entry to the café and free public through access to the park proper from Alison Road.

 

The building form allows the retention of significant trees and sandstone walls that exist nearby the site which are important landscape character elements. The built form is considered satisfactory subject to further details of the materials and colours to be used being provided with the application for a construction certificate as per Condition 3.

 

Relationship to existing streetscape and context

 

The proposal has been sited to have a minimal impact on the existing streetscape and heritage context of this area. The proposal is unlikely to result in the loss of any existing trees (however one conifer has been conditioned for removal if required) and will be screened by the dense foliage of established fig trees on The Avenue and Alison Road frontages. The finished floor level of the café has been carefully considered to integrate into the existing paving and topography. The siting of the building and visibility of the proposal from the public square encourages public use of the square and greater activity in this part of the park. The seclusion of the proposal from the nearby heritage items will ensure it does not detract from their significance. The proposal is sited to the rear of the Presbyterian Church on the corner of Abbey Street, Alison Road and Cook Street and will not be clearly visible as part of the visual context of the church due to the large trees that exist on the corner of Abbey Street and Alison Road and the distance between the church and the café. Trees on Alison Road and The Avenue will generally screen the development from nearby heritage items.

 

Density

 

The density of the proposed development and intensity of the use are considered minimal in the context of a medium-sized local park at the edge of a commercial centre.

 

The café is proposed to be a small-scale operation that is intended to provide a service to the local population and visitors to the Randwick commercial centre. The proposed maximum number of seated patrons is considered reasonable being forty (40) at any one time and will not represent a significant strain on the capacity of the existing open space provided in the park.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to density.

 

Privacy and Noise

 

The proposed café will not impact on the privacy of surrounding residential properties due to the separation between the site and these residences and existing vegetation that screens dwellings along The Avenue from view.

 

The Presbyterian Church across Abbey Street has expressed concerns regarding increased noise, however the café use is considered unlikely to generate significant additional noise than exists currently, particularly given ambient noise levels from traffic in the area. Council’s Manager, Health and Building has proposed conditions of consent requiring any plant and equipment to result in noise levels that are below the definition of ‘offensive noise’.

 

Amplified music is not considered to result in significant impacts to surrounding properties. A condition of consent requiring amplified music be kept to background levels has been included in the recommendation (see condition 9).

 

Overshadowing

 

The proposal will result in some very localised overshadowing to the existing square during the mornings and to the grassed area to the east during afternoons. The north-south orientation of the building has minimised overshadowing impacts to any one area as the sun moves dramatically throughout the day. The openness of the terrace structure has also minimised any overshadowing and the location of the solid café building away from the paved square has further reduced impacts.

 

The proposal will not have an impact on solar access to surrounding buildings and is satisfactory with regard to overshadowing and solar access to the park.

 

Energy Efficiency

 

The proposal has been designed to minimise reliance on mechanical systems. The ‘verandah’ portion of the building uses passive ventilation and the roof structure slopes north south to allow maximum solar access during winter, while during summer the adjustable steel mesh screens will provide sunshading.

 

The retractable doors provided to the edge of the terrace can be closed to provide protection against wind or rain removing the need for integral mechanical environmental control systems such as air-conditioning. The kitchen has large operable windows but will also have mechanical exhaust located over the cooking area to ensure the air from the kitchen is appropriately filtered.

 

Condition 3.1 requires a Waste Management Plan that makes provision for recycling be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to energy efficiency.

 

Social Impacts

 

The proposed location of a café in Alison Park will provide greater amenity to park visitors. The provision of takeaway as well as sit-down facilities close to Alison Road increases the variety of service available and improves access to and flexibility of the café for passers-by or visitors who wish to purchase items and consume them elsewhere in the park. The construction of the café will not result in a significant reduction in the area publicly accessible for community use and will provide significant benefits. The SEE states that the café will “provide reasonably priced meals, as per DLWC Food and Beverage Policy” and this will promote equitable access to the facility.

 

At grade access to the café seating is provided from the northern end of the café which allows continuous access from Alison Road via the paved square. An accessible toilet is provided at grade with the seating and will ensure all residents and visitors can enjoy the additional facilities provided by the café. Condition 2 requires hand rails be installed to assist access from the western and southern entry points to assist those with reduced mobility.

 

In order to ensure equity of access to café facilities, the café will be available for public functions, but private bookings for functions will not be taken. The use of the café and terrace seating area for private functions is to be prohibited in the licence agreement required by Condition 18 (see Condition 5).

 

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to social impacts.

 

Safety and security

 

The introduction of an active use into the park in the proposed location is generally considered to improve surveillance and security in the area. The proposed hours of 7am to 8pm, 7 days will encourage greater use of the park facilities at various times of day which will improve surveillance and has the potential to increase the use of the park.

 

The terrace and café building have been sited so as to allow for total closure of the structure after hours. Glazed doors to all sides of the terrace will ensure furniture can be secured and the kitchen area is secured via a roller door. The toilet and garbage area should also have locking facilities to limit the potential for vandalism of the structure and surrounds. This has been included as a condition of consent.

 

No details of lighting have been provided with the application. It is considered that the lighting is important for improving the visibility of the building at night and increasing surveillance (see Condition 10). Efficient lighting that provides adequate light levels is also required in the interests of ensuring safety, given the change in level between the terrace and ground level, which could result in accidents out of daylight hours. Details of the proposed lighting scheme are to be provided prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Waste

 

The café service building includes screened storage space for up to six (6) Sulo bins for garbage and recyclables. The location and built form of the storage area are acceptable and will not detract from the amenity of the park. A condition of consent requiring the submission of a detailed Waste Management Plan has been included in the recommendation (see condition 31).

 

9.2       Operation

 

The proposed hours of operation of 7.00am to 8.00pm seven days a week are considered reasonable for a café use. These hours will allow patrons to access the café before and after regular work hours and will improve surveillance in the park by remaining open after sunset.

 

The terrace and café will be locked outside of hours by closing the large glazed doors to all sides of the terrace and locking the café service building. Outdoor seating will be separately licensed in accordance with the requirements of DCP 20 as required by Condition 18.

 

9.3       Traffic and Parking

 

The proposal is considered unlikely to generate traffic and demand for parking over and above the existing demand in the immediate area and Randwick commercial area. The low intensity of the café use and the proposed hours of operation will ensure existing parking and traffic issues related to peak periods for nearby church and school uses are not exacerbated. The proposal is located in close proximity to bus stops on Alison Road that service major routes to Bondi Junction and the City that will encourage public transport use.

 

Deliveries to the premises will be minimal due to the low numbers of patrons expected. Early morning deliveries will occur with trucks parking on The Avenue or Abbey Street and making deliveries on foot.

 

9.4       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The proposed café will be the only one in Alison Park and will improve the amenity of the public open space. The provision of a retail food and beverage outlet will be complementary to the existing passive and active recreational uses which take place in the park. The construction of a café in this location will not significantly impact on the viability of existing cafes and retail food outlets in the Randwick Commercial Centre.

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

9.5       The public interest

 

The provision of a café in the proposed location will provide significant additional amenity to a public place and will not reduce existing public access to the park for passive and active recreation enjoyed currently. Extensive community consultation has been undertaken which has resulted in strong expressions of support for the proposal. The development is considered to be in the public interest.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site despite its location within a Heritage Conservation Area and proximity to heritage items. The new café building will make a positive contribution to the desired future character of the area. The proposal meets the objectives contained within the RLEP98 for redevelopment of sites zoned for open space. An assessment proposal against the relevant matters under DCP 20 has been undertaken and the proposal is considered satisfactory.

 

The development will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties or the continued public use of the park. The provision of a café in this location will improve amenity, and increase activity and surveillance in the park. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority and in accordance with subclause 40A(2)(a) of the RLEP98 waive the master planning requirements for the site as the works are minor and ancillary in nature.

 

B.         THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0991/02 for construction of a new building containing a café, covered terrace and associated kitchen at 194R Alison Road (Alison Park), Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Hill Thalis Architecture + Urban Projects P/L numbered DA01 through to DA05, dated Sept 2002, stamped received by Council on 21/10/02, 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.         Appropriate handrails are to be provided to the eastern edge of the terrace stairs on the southern elevation of the building to assist persons with limited mobility. Details of handrails are to meet relevant BCA and Australian Standards criteria for accessibility and are to be included in the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

3.         The hours of operation of the café are to be limited to 7.00am to 8.00pm, 7 days a week. This condition is imposed to clarify the hours of operation in order to minimise any amenity impacts.

 

4.         Any licensing of the premises for the serving or consumption of alcohol is to form a separate application to the relevant authority. This consent does not provide for the serving or consumption of alcohol purchased on the premises or elsewhere, within the café area or Alison Park in general.

 

5.         The use of the café and terrace seating area for private functions is to be prohibited as part of the licence agreement required by Condition 18. This condition is imposed in order to ensure equity of access to café facilities.

 

6.         Fully operable doors to all sides of the terrace seating area are to be annotated on the plans, elevations and sections submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The doors are to be shown where dotted lines indicate aluminium-framed windows and mesh over at present (enclosing the area between the second last column to the north and south and the east and west rows of columns). This condition is imposed to clarify minor inconsistencies with the plans that have been confirmed verbally with the Architects and to ensure that adequate security is provided to the development out of operating hours.

 

7.         The toilet and garbage storage room are to be secured outside of operating hours to minimise opportunities for vandalism to these areas. External locks are to be provided to the doors to each of these areas and are to be included in the schedule on the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

 

8.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with its setting and with adjacent surfaces and structures.  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 and Environment, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

9.         The playing of amplified music in the café is not to interfere with the general enjoyment of the park area and is to be kept to background levels. This condition is imposed to ensure that the amenity of the park and surrounds is maintained. A clause is to be included in the Operations Plan (to be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate), which reinforces the requirements of this condition.

 

10.       The plans submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate are to include details of the proposed lighting scheme for the building. Appropriate lighting levels for are to be established using the relevant Australian Standards. This condition is imposed to ensure adequate lighting of the public domain for safety and surveillance and to ensure the lighting scheme for the building is compatible with its setting and will not detract from the surrounds.

 

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

 

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

 

12.       The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

13.       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.

 

14.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra, Energy Australia, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

15.       Roofwater discharge from the site is to be piped to Council's kerb and gutter in Alison Road.

 

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

 

16.       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.

 

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

 

17.       Permission is granted for the removal of one (1) Cupressus sempervirens (Pencil Pine) located within the park, closest to the proposed development.

 

The following conditions are applied to meet the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan “Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace Above Roads and Public Land”.

 

18.       Prior to operation of the proposed café seating the applicant shall enter into a formal license agreement with Council covering the terms and conditions of the café seating classed as outdoor seating (i.e. the seating outside the bi-fold door line). The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0936), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

19.       The Licensee must keep in full force and effect for the term of the license agreement established, a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the licensed area and the business undertaken by the Licensee therein. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $10,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

NOTES:

a.   The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the licensed area.

b.   The policy must name the Council as the owner and the Licensee as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first given the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

c.   The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the Licensee to the Council

 

20.       The Licensee shall indemnify Council for the full duration of the license agreement from and against all claims, demands, writs, etc. as set out in the formal license agreement.

 

21.       The style and colour of the furniture to be used in the café seating area shall be in accordance with the Development Control Plan “Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace Above Roads and Public Land”. No advertising or other structures shall be installed without the prior written consent of Council. Design details of the proposed furniture shall be submitted to Council for approval, and approved, prior to the execution of a formal license agreement between Council and the applicant.

 

22.       The applicant shall meet all other requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan “Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace Above Roads and Public Land”.

 

23.       The applicant shall ensure that the café outdoor seating area is maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times. It is noted that this includes high pressure water blasting to clean the footpath restaurant area at least once every 6 months or as directed by Council’s officers.

 

24.       The café operator shall ensure that the pavement of the café outdoor seating area is maintained free of grease and other foodstuffs at all times.

 

25.       The café operator shall, during the term of the agreement with Council, abide with any current or future Council Policy, Resolution or directive relative to the consumption of alcohol in public spaces.

 

26.       The applicant shall abide with any directive given by any utility authority in relation to access requirement to any utility within the proposed lease area.

 

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:

 

27.       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 other premises or within any other premises.

 

28.       The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance.

 

29.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant conditions of approval.

 

30.       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 and conditions of Council’s approval.

 

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

 

31.       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 the commencement of any works.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development, facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

32.       The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       The location and height of the discharge of mechanical ventilation systems are required to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668 and details are to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certificate.

 

35.       Emission control equipment shall be provided in the mechanical exhaust system serving the cooking appliances, to effectively minimise the emission of odours, vapours and oils.

 

Details of the proposed emission control equipment must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of The Environment Protection and Assessment Act 1979 prior to issuing the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

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 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:

 

37.       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.

 

38.       The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority), to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction and Council’s development consent.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority shall specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

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.       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.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

46.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Fences or hoardings are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to and approved by Council and 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.

 

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

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.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

50.       Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the proposed Café / Restaurant, in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia.  Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certification for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 1989 and Council’s Food Premises Code:

 

51.       The premises is 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.

 

52.       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, having a minimum radius of 25mm.

 

·    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, 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 refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

 

·    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.

 

53.       Details of proposed mechanical ventilation systems, detailing compliance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA, Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2 (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points) and detailing the required emission control equipment are to be submitted to and approved by:

 

Council’s Director of Planning and Environment Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the subject works.

 

54.       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..

 

·    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.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 104/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

7 ROBERTS AVENUE, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

29 November, 2002

FILE NO:

DA 652/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for modification to delete Condition No. 2 relating to a hardstand car space 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 22 November 2002

2.  A4 configuration plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

22 November, 2002

FILE NO:

DA 652/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 - Modification to delete Condition No. 2 of the consent relating to a hardstand car space

PROPERTY:

 7 Roberts Avenue, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 M. Gerstl and Associates

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 as the original application was determined by Council.

 

This application seeks the deletion of condition 2 of Development Consent No 652/02 issued on 4 December 2001 relating to the provision of a car space between the existing dwelling house and the street alignment.

 

The proposed car space is of inadequate depth and therefore does not comply with the minimum dimensions required by Development Control Plan- Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies, and Development Control Plan-Parking.

 

The application to modify the consent is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The original development application detailed alterations and additions to the dwelling, including the provision of a hardstand carspace to the front of the dwelling.

 

Consent was granted at the Health Building and Planning Committee meeting of the 4th December 2001 subject to conditions including condition No.2 which states:

 

“ The car space and associated paved area is deleted from the proposal as the car space does not comply with the minimum dimensions required under the

Development Control Plan – Parking”

 

This application seeks to modify the conditions of consent to have condition 2 deleted.

 

It should be noted that due to an administrative error conditions provided by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure, relating to the provision of a footpath crossing if the car space was approved, were included in the recommended conditions of consent.

 

It should also be noted that the current Section 96 Application varies materially in factual content, as the proposed car space is now shown as 4.79m x2.5m rather than 3.5m x3m shown on both previous applications. The front setback of the building has been checked on site and is confirmed as being 4.79m.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Roberts Avenue and has overall dimensions of 6.1m x 38.11m and an area of 232.5m5. The site currently accommodates a single storey semi-detached dwelling and adjoins a two storey semi detached dwelling to the north.

 

The locality is residential in nature and is characterised by a mixture of residential flat buildings and semi detached dwellings. The premises forms part of a row of semi detached dwellings, most of which have been modified from their original appearance. There are several semi detached dwellings along Roberts Avenue which have had first floor additions and have existing substandard size carspaces.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The premises has been the subject of a previous Section 96 application to modify the consent to include the removal of a portion of the floor of the front verandah, undertake minor internal changes to the floor plan and provide a skylight, consent was granted to that Section 96 application on the 25th February 2002.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998, no response has been received.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan - Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

The proposed development provides for one car parking space forward of the building alignment. The proposed dimensions for the car parking space are 4.79 m x 2.5m. The width of the carspace is 2.5m and covers 41.7% of the width of the site. The proposed development does not satisfy the 35% maximum requirement, and the depth of the carport space (4.79m) represents a significant departure from the minimum requirement of 5.5m. A family sized vehicle, parked in this space will encroach or overhang Council’s footpath / nature strip.

 

Council at its meeting of 26 November 2002 amended Section 4.7 of the Development Control Plan by the deletion of P2 of the Performance Requirement which required that car spaces not breach the building alignment and not become an undesirable precedent. However, Preferred solution 1 and Performance requirement 1 relating to minimum dimensions for car spaces remains unaltered.

 

 In addition, it is considered that the proposed carspace does not satisfy the first Objective of Section 4.7.1 of the DCP which states:

 

·        To ensure on-site car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of dwellings or the local streetscape.

 

b.   Development Control Plan- Parking

 

Parking Layout

 

The proposed carspace does not meet the minimum stipulated dimensions of Section 3.1.3 (5.5mx2.5m) or the minimum dimensions for a small car space (4.9m x 2.4m). Given the substandard depth of the carspace (4.79m) it could also be argued that the proposal does not satisfy the first Objective of Section 3.1.1 of the DCP which states:

 

·        To ensure parking facilities are efficient, adequate and safe.

 

Taking the above considerations into account, and the fact that the proposed car space will significantly reduce opportunities for the provision of soft landscaping to the front of the building and impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape and neighbouring properties, it is recommended that the condition imposed to delete the carspace and front paved area from the application be retained.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in respect of the Objectives and depth of the car space and the percentage of the frontage to be covered and Development Control Plan –Parking in respect of the Objectives and depth of the car space. It is therefore considered that the application to modify condition 2 of the Development Consent should be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to the Application to modify the consent and delete condition No.2 of consent for the following reasons.

 

1.         The proposed car space fails to satisfy the Objectives, the minimum car space dimensions and exceeds the maximum 35% site width and the preferred solutions of Section 4.7.1 of Development Control Plan - Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

2.         The proposed car space fails to satisfy the Objectives and minimum car space dimensions of Section 3.1 of Development Control Plan - Parking and may result in vehicles parked in the car space overhanging the footpath.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 105/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BUILDING CERTIFICATION SERVICES SURVEY

 

 

DATE:

28 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3830

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Background

 

In July 1998, major changes were made to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 which introduced the option of obtaining various building certificates (ie Construction Certificates) from an Accredited Certifier or the Council.

 

An Accredited Certifier or Council can also be appointed to act as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), to carry out building inspections and issue occupation certificates.

 

The Accreditation System was subsequently developed by DUAP (now Planning NSW) and the option of appointing private sector accredited certifiers principally became available in 1999/2000.

 

In late 2000, the Manager Environmental Health & Building Services carried out a project aimed at improving efficiency and service levels within Council’s Environmental Health & Building section, which subsequently recommended the establishment of a business unit to carry out the building certification and inspection services for Council, in effect in competition with private certifiers.

 

Appointment of Council as the Certifier/PCA

 

The appointment of Council as the certifier for building works has a number of benefits to the organization and community including:-

 

·    The provision of a thorough assessment of the construction certificate documentation and to ensure relevant development application conditions are satisfied.

 

·    Ensuring the development is implemented in accordance with relevant conditions of consent and building regulations and standards.

 

·    To help identify and resolve potential non-compliance, public safety and construction site management and environmental issues.

 

·    Provision of an independant certification and inspection service and to act in the overall interests of the Council and community.

 

·    To facilitate the development and construction process and to provide quality and efficient building certification and inspection services to the residents of Randwick.

 

Introduction

 

In July 2001, Randwick City Council established a business unit, Building Certification Services (BCS), to provide building approval, certification and inspection services to the local community, in effect, competition with private sector Accredited Certifiers.

 

In the past eighteen months, a number of initiatives have been introduced by BCS to provide improved levels of service to its customers and to fulfil Council’s broader public interest objectives.

 

Since the introduction of the business unit, processing times for Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates has improved by approximately 20% and a number of additional customer oriented services have also been developed.

 

BCS currently provide 67% of the certification and inspection services within Randwick, which is quite competitive and encompasses a large proportion of residential type development.

 

The Survey

 

To ascertain levels of customer satisfaction since the introduction of the business unit and to explore reasons why applicants may choose to appoint a private certifier, a comprehensive survey was carried out by Council’s Performance Improvement Section.

 

The survey also aimed at comparing current BCS services with those delivered under Council’s previous system and at identifying any areas of service which could be improved.

 

The implementation of a survey was subsequently identified by the Manager Environmental Health & Building Services as a specific strategy in the Management Plan 2002/2005 and was also recently recommended for implementation by Council’s Auditor.

 

Two surveys were undertaken, sampling the opinions of both customers and non-customers. The customer survey was entitled Customer Feedback and the non-customer survey was entitled Feedback Survey.

 

A summary report and a detailed report has been prepared on the surveys, by Susanna Ianni of the Performance Improvement Unit (copies of which are attached) and the reports and recommendations have also recently been adopted by Manex.

Some of the key responses are detailed below:-

 

BUILDING CERTIFICATION SERVICES (BCS) CUSTOMER SURVEY

 

Physical Service Delivery Ratings

Costs and fees

52% of customers indicated that costs and fees are ‘acceptable’ and another 40% rated costs and fees as ‘good’.

 

Overall timeliness of service

27% and 50% of customers indicated that the ‘overall timeliness of service is ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ respectively.

 

Quality of inspection services

22% of customers gave an ‘excellent’ and 57% gave a ‘good’ rating on this dimension.

 

Quality of certification services

22% of customers gave an ‘excellent’ rating and 56% gave a ‘good’ rating on this dimension.

 

Written documentation and forms

20% of customers rated written documentation and forms as ‘excellent’ and another 48% as ‘good’.

 

Physical location of BCS

27% of respondents indicated that the location is ‘excellent’ and 54% indicated the location is ‘good’.

 

BCS Staff Ratings

Friendliness of Staff

31% of customers rated friendliness of staff as ‘excellent’ and another 54% rated friendliness of staff as ‘good’.

 

Ability of staff to deal with problems

21% of customers said that the ability of staff to deal with problems is ‘excellent’ and another 54% said this is ‘good’. 

 

Technical knowledge of staff

20% of customers rated the technical knowledge of staff as ‘excellent’ and 61% rated this as ‘good’. 

 

Willingness to help

31% of customers rated the willingness of staff to help as ‘excellent’ and 47% of respondents rated this as ‘good’.

 

Accessibility to staff

24% of customers gave an ‘excellent’ rating and another 54% gave a ‘good’ rating on accessibility to staff.

 

Availability of staff for inspections

25% of customers believe that the availability of staff is ‘excellent’ and 59% believe it is ‘good’.

 

Availability of staff for appointments

24% of customers believe that the availability of staff for appointments is ‘excellent’ and 56% believe this is ‘good’.

 

Follow-up on issues

22% and 50% of customers rated follow-up on issues as ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ respectively.

 

Being informed of progress

20% of customers rated being informed of progress as ‘excellent’ and 49% rated it as ‘good’.

 

Staff returning phone calls

20% and 53% of customers indicated that staff returning phone calls is ‘excellent and ‘good’ respectively.

 

Service Improvements

72% of customers who had used Councils building and inspection services said they believed that service improvements had occurred over the last 12 months.

 

Suggestions for Improvement

·      BCS offers good service at present

§  a need to improve the services offered by the Planning Department

§   better processing times

§   the marketing and promotion of services

§   a focus on costs and fees

§   an understanding of the separateness of BCS

§   improved technical expertise.

 

Demographic Information

72% of customers in the sample were owners.

 

§ Dwelling house, 59.0%

§ Garage / carport / pergola, 20.5%

 

Overall Satisfaction

22% of customers rated the overall service as ‘excellent’ and 60% of customers rated the overall service as ‘good’.

 

 
 
NON-CUSTOMER SURVEY

 

Reason for Selecting an Accredited Certifier

§ Better quality and timeliness of service, 23.6%

§ I had difficulty with Council regarding my DA, 20.0%

§ The Certifier was recommended to me, 18.2%

 

Future Use of BCS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggestions

64% of non-customers said they would use BCS in the future and 29% said they would not use BCS in the future.  The reasons given for non-use by the latter group include the following themes –

 

§ issues relating to the development assessment process

§ issues with service (e.g. processing times)

§ beliefs that Private Certifiers are more reliable and faster

§ apprehension toward Council.

 

 

When asked about what BCS would need to do to encourage use in future project the following themes emerged –

 

§ marketing and promotion

§ overall service improvements (e.g. attitudes of staff)

§ increase in the speed of service

§ improvements to the Customer Service Centre

§ competitive costs and fees.

 

General Comments

The general comments made by non-customers include the following themes –

 

§ overall improvements with respect to procedures

§ a need to review Council’s attitude (e.g. policing)

§ belief that Council is bureaucratic

§ improvements in decision-making processes.

 

Demographic Information

 

Accredited Certifiers were most commonly used for –

 

§ Dwelling house,  44.8%

§ Multi-unit Dwelling,  27.6%

 

 

 

Assessment of Survey Results

 

Overall the results achieved are positive with large proportions of customers, between 62% and 85%, providing ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ satisfaction ratings with respect to physical service delivery and ‘people’ service delivery (i.e.  the attitudes and behaviours of staff).  These results are rewarding for BCS staff that have concentrated on enhancing services since the establishment of the BCS unit through specific continuous improvement assignments (e.g.  improved services, staff availability and option of early morning inspections for customers).

 

It was shown that owners comprised the largest proportions of respondents in both survey samples. The majority of works undertaken by both the BCS unit and Accredited Certifiers was for dwelling houses with the customers also indicating they used BCS for the certification of garages, carports and pergolas.  Both BCS and Accredited Certifiers were also used for works in relation to multi-unit dwellings and commercial developments, although the majority of these developments are subject to private certification.

 

As shown by the actual data collected BCS has 67.2% of the market share for Construction Certificates (CCs) and Complying Development Certificates (CDCs).  BCS is capturing the greatest percentage of work within the local area compared with Accredited Certifiers and competing extremely well given the scope of business able to be generated relates to dwelling houses and is limited to the Council area.

 

It is a very positive finding that both customers and non-customers indicated they would use BCS in the future.  Both groups elicited convergent responses on the sorts of improvements likely to benefit BCS and enhance service delivery. 

 

The overall results which were achieved in the surveys are very good and encouraging for Building Certification Services and Randwick City Council.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the report on the Building Certification services survey be noted.

 

2.       That relevant personnel be commended for their commitment to the Building Certification Services business unit and continuous improvements in customer service.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Summary report on Building Certification Services survey by Susanna Ianni.

2. Detailed Building Certification Services Survey - Customer and Non-Customer feedback October 2002.

3. Building Certification Services Information Sheet - UNDER SEPARATE COVER      

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & BUILDING SERVICES- REPORT AUTHOR

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 106/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

3R Marine Parade, MAROUBRA  (Pavilion Cafe - Maroubra Beach)

 

 

DATE:

3 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 433/2002  for Section 82A Review of Determination to enclose the open dining area of the Pavilion Café and to extend the licensed area of the café to provide outdoor seating area 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.  Director Planning & Community Development Report 61/2002

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:

3 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of Determination to enclose the open dining area of the Pavilion Café and to extend the licensed area of the café to provide outdoor seating area

PROPERTY:

 3R MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 See to Shore Pty Ltd t/as Pavilion Cafe

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, as the subject property is Crown land under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

The estimated cost of development is $100,000.

 

The review application seeks the deletion of condition No.10 of the development consent, which restricts the proposed extension to the licensed area of the café.

 

The review application was notified and no submissions were received.

 

No objections are raised to the proposal from a planning viewpoint as no increase in the seating capacity of the café is proposed and the extension of the licensed area to provide outdoor eating area will not impact adversely on pedestrian circulation and movement around the adjacent promenade and forecourt areas of the Pavilion building.

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has granted its consent as landowner to the application (including for the proposed extension to the license area).

 

The recommendation is for approval. subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The original development application sought consent for the enclosure of an area outside the existing café/kiosk to provide an enclosed eating/ seating area. The applicant proposed the erection of powder-coated aluminium glazed doors, positioned between the existing circular concrete columns. The proposed enclosed area has a floor area of approximately 82.5m2.

 

No increase in the seating capacity was proposed, however, the applicant proposed to reposition tables and chairs beyond the existing leased area to take advantage of the weather conditions. The hours of operation are presently from 8.30 am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Saturday to Sunday and until 11.00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings during spring and summer. The applicant proposed to change the hours of operation to include evenings (until 11.00 pm) all year round. The number of employees was to be increased from 5 permanent and 5 casual staff to 8 permanent and 8 casual staff.

 

Council resolved at it’s ordinary Council Meeting dated 27 August 2002 that the following condition (condition 10) be attached to the development consent:

 

10. The proposed extension of the license area is not approved and shall be deleted from the approved plans; details of compliance shall be included in the construction certificate application and plans.

 

The review application seeks the deletion of the above condition to allow the proposed extension to the licensed area.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site consists of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion, which is situated in the central part of Maroubra Beach. Vehicle access to the site is gained via Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade. To the north there is beach, public open space, Maroubra Beach Commercial Area and residential development, to the south there is beach and the Arthur Byrne Reserve and the Anzac Rifle Range.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA 104/1983 was lodged to demolish the existing      Maroubra Beach Pavilion and erect a new beach pavilion comprising of concourse, change rooms/toilets, first aid, inspectors and police rooms, council store, lunchroom, storage areas and a medium sized dwelling over (caretaker’s residence), 232 car parking spaces and associated landscaping works. The application was approved on 13 October, 1983.

 

DA 306/1988  was lodged for permission to extend and enclose the existing kiosk facility. The application was approved on 12/10/88 subject to three (3) standard conditions. This consent was apparently not implemented and has subsequently lapsed.

 

DA 364/1996 was lodged for permission to enclose an area to the front of the existing kiosk to create an enclosed eating area and the provision of glazed roofing over the entrance and kiosk servery. The proposal was refused on 03/10/96 on the following reason: -

 

“ The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of Part 3 Clause 24 of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance in that it will result in the creation of a refreshment room, as defined in Part1 Clause 4 (1) the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance, within a 6 (a) zone.”

 

The proposal was for an intensification of the existing kiosk to include a large enclosed dining area than existing.  Due to the nature of the proposed development, it was considered at that time sufficient to result in a change from a kiosk to a refreshment room type of use, which was prohibited within a 6 (a) zone under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance. Restaurants are now a permissible use in the 6A Open Space zone under Randwick LEP 1998.

 

DA433/2002 to enclose the open dining area of the café and to extend the licensed area to provide outdoor seating area was considered by Council at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 August 2002 when it was resolved to approve the application subject to a condition requiring the deletion of the proposed extension to the license area. The Director of Planning and Community Development’s report to the meeting had recommended approval of the application without such restriction.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

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

 

An application has been received for review of the determination for development application 433/2002 which was to enclose the dining area of the Pavilion Café at Maroubra Beach and extend the existing approved licensed seating area.

 

Council resolved at it’s ordinary Council Meeting dated 27 August 2002 that the following condition (condition 10) be attached to development consent:

 

10.     The proposed extension of the license area is not approved and shall be deleted from the approved plans; details of compliance shall be included in the construction certificate application and plans

 

It is understood that the review is sought to permit the licensed area to be extended.

 

As the review relates to condition 10, which was not issued by the AIS Department, the original AIS Department report issued for this application remains unchanged.

 

In accordance with our original memo which supported the application to extend the seating area, it is recommended that condition 10 above be replaced with the following condition (condition 2 from our previous memo):

 

2.             Prior to the operation of the extended seating area, the existing Licensee Agreement shall be amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits of the Licensed seating area. All costs associated with amending the license agreement shall be met by the Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café). The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0899), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

6.2       Department of Land and Water Conservation

 

By letter dated 26 November 2002, the Department of Land and Water Conservation has granted its consent as landowner to the application (including for the proposed extension to the license area).

 

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 Ope Space 6A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity (restaurant) is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Clause 38(2) of the LEP requires the Council to consider the following issues prior determining an application on land within Zone No 6(a): -

 

“  a.   the need for the proposed development on the land, and

b.   whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

c.   the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

d.   the need to retain the land for it’s existing or likely future use.”

 

8.    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.

 

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.

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has granted its consent as landowner to the application (including for the proposed extension to the license area).

 

The Director of Planning and Community Development’s previous assessment of the proposal, as reported to the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 August 2002, remains unchanged.

 

No objections are raised to the proposal from a planning viewpoint as no increase in the seating capacity of the café is proposed and the extension of the licensed area to provide outdoor eating area will not impact adversely on pedestrian circulation and movement around the adjacent promenade and forecourt areas of the Pavilion building.

 

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal will promote the use and enjoyment of Maroubra Beach and will not prevent access to any critical public open space areas.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No.02/00433/GQ dated 2 September 2002 to Section 82A Review of Determination to enclose the open dining area of the Pavilion Café and to extend the licensed area of the café to provide outdoor seating area be amended as follows:

 

Condition No.10 is deleted and replaced by the following:

 

10.       Prior to the operation of the extended seating area, the existing Licensee Agreement shall be amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits of the Licensed seating area. All costs associated with amending the license agreement shall be met by the Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café). The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0899), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

-A4 configurations

-Copy of Director's report to Council's Ordinary Meeting held on 27 August 2002 on the original application 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 61/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Cafe - Maroubra Beach)

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 433/2002 for 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Café – Maroubra Beach) for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 16 August 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

16 August, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0433/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Enclosed the open dining area of the Pavilion Cafe at Maroubra Beach and extend the existing seating area

PROPERTY:

 3R Marine Parade, MAROUBRA  (Pavilion Cafe - Maroubra Beach)

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 SEA TO SHORE PTY LTD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the subject property is Crown land under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

The estimated cost of development is $100,000.

 

In response to notification of the proposal, no submissions have been received.

 

The proposed enclosure of the existing kiosk/café is consistent with the objectives of the 6A Open Space zone and will not adversely impact on the amenity of locality.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the enclosure of an area outside the existing café/kiosk to provide an enclosed eating/ seating area. The applicant proposes the erection of powder- coated aluminium glazed doors, which will be positioned between the existing circular concrete columns. The enclosed area is to have a floor area of approximately 82.5m2.

 

No increase in the seating capacity is proposed, however, the applicant proposes to reposition tables and chairs beyond the existing leased area to take advantage of the weather conditions. The hours of operation is presently from 8.30 am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Saturday to Sunday and until 11.00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings during spring and summer. The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation to include evenings (until 11.00 pm) all year round. The number of employees is to be increased from 5 permanent and 5 casual staff to 8 permanent and 8 casual staff.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site consists of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion, which is situated in the central part of Maroubra Beach. Vehicle access to the site is gained via Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade. To the north there is beach, public open space, Maroubra Beach Commercial Area and residential development, to the south there is beach and the Arthur Byrne Reserve and the Anzac Rifle Range.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA 104/1983 was lodged to demolish the existing      Maroubra Beach Pavilion and erect a new beach pavilion comprising of concourse, change rooms/toilets, first aid, inspectors and police rooms, council store, lunchroom, storage areas and a medium sized dwelling over (caretaker’s residence), 232 car parking spaces and associated landscaping works. The application was approved on 13 October, 1983.

 

DA 306/1988  was lodged for permission to extend and enclose the existing kiosk facility. The application was approved on 12/10/88 subject to three (3) standard conditions. This consent was apparently not implemented and has subsequently lapsed.

 

DA 364/1996 was lodged for permission to enclose an area to the front of the existing kiosk to create an enclosed eating area and the provision of glazed roofing over the entrance and kiosk servery. The proposal was refused on 03/10/96 on the following reason: -

 

“ The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of Part 3 Clause 24 of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance in that it will result in the creation of a refreshment room, as defined in Part1 Clause 4 (1) the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance, within a 6 (a) zone.”

 

The proposal was for an intensification of the existing kiosk to include a  large enclosed dining area than existing.  Due to the nature of the proposed development, it was considered at that time sufficient to result in a change from a kiosk to a refreshment room type of use, which was prohibited within a 6 (a) zone under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance. Restaurants are now a permissible use in the 6A Open Space zone under Randwick LEP 1998.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No objections have been received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was referred to Council’s Parks and Recreation Coordinator and the following response was received on the 16 August 2002.

 

An application has been received from the Licensee of the Pavilion Café at Maroubra Beach to re-position tables and chairs beyond the existing approved licensed area to take advantage of weather conditions and also to enclose part of the existing license area by replacing the existing clear PVC windbreaks with fold back glass doors.  The applicant further advises in the proposal that there is no plan to increase the seating capacity at this time.

 

Background

 

Tenders were called for the operation of the Maroubra Beach kiosk during 2000 and the tender was awarded to See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café.  A 5-year Licence Agreement was executed on the 28th of May 2001 with the License period being January 1, 2001 and terminating on 31st December 2005. No option exists for extension of the License period.  The License Fee payable to Council in the initial year was $39,000 with the second and subsequent years rental being adjusted by CPI.  The tendered amount was within the expected range and close to the amount specified by the Valuation Report commissioned by Council.

 

At the time of calling for tenders, the kiosk was in a dilapidated state requiring significant work including repainting, repairs and improvements to the building to provide adequate security.  Since the commencement of trading at the kiosk/café, the outdoor eating area was covered and the Licensee erected a clear PVC weather protection system to enable patrons to have a meal in relative protection from the wind and other inclement weather.  The system is somewhat cumbersome, requiring daily erection and dismantling and over time may be prone to deterioration and loss of visibility through the clear PVC.

 

Issues

 

The proposal put forward by the Licensee to install fold back glass doors is supported as it will provide a better environment for both patrons of the kiosk/café and will improve the aesthetic of the building when viewed from the beach.  When not in use or at night, the door system will be retracted against the existing columns and secured with fold back grills.  This will allow general access across the outdoor part of the License area, thus complying with the License Agreement and requirements of the DLWC Food And Beverage Policy.

 

The proposal to permit diners to take advantage of the weather by providing a more flexible seating arrangement is also supported, as it is a logical proposal given the nature of the activity of the varying weather conditions experienced at the beachfront.

 

Clause 43 of the License Agreement permits the Licensee at its own cost to provide other plant, materials and equipment of whatever kind necessary to fulfil the requirements of the License.  Part 3 of Clause 43 states:

 

All plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings including new or replacement items purchased during the course of the License period or any renewal of this License period remain the property of the Licensor at all times, unless otherwise agreed.

 

Part 4 of Clause 43 states:

 

The Licensor may upgrade or purchase additional plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings.  The decision to do this would be based on a business case put forward to the Licensor by the Licensee, which would include the costs and benefits and an adjustment to the net cost to the Licensor.

 

This matter is raised for the following reasons:

 

1.   Council, as Licensor may elect to fund the capital improvement and to then adjust the License Fee

 

 Or;

 

2.   Approve the installation of the fixtures by the Licensee on the understanding that at the expiry of the License, the fixtures remain the property of the Licensor and that approval for the works in no way implies that the License period is to be extended renewed.

 

Funds have not been provided for the works as proposed by the Licensee hence it would be recommended that Council pursue its option detailed under item 2.

 

Recommendations

 

No objection is raised to the application lodged by See to Shore to install fold back aluminum and glass fold back doors and to permit an extension to the area to be used for outdoor dining subject to the following conditions:

 

The Licensee pay for all costs associated with the proposal;

 

The Licensee agreement is amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits to the License area with costs for the amendments being borne by the Licensee;

 

In accordance with Clause 43, Part 3, the improvements remain the property of the Licensor;

 

There is no increase in the seating capacity of the kiosk/café.

 

The Licensee be advised that this approval does not in any way confer or imply that the License Period will be extended or renewed other than may be permitted in the License Agreement.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Open Space 6 (a) Recreation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity (restaurants) is permissible.

 

Clause 38(2) of the LEP requires the Council to consider the following issues prior determining an application on land within Zone No 6(a): -

 

“  a.   the need for the proposed development on the land, and

b.   whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

c.   the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

d.   the need to retain the land for it’s existing or likely future use.”

 

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Impact on adjoining uses

 

In 1994 Council commissioned a Plan of Management Overview, which was adopted in September 1996. In 1997 Keys Young prepared an Urban Design and Planning Strategy for the commercial precinct. Keys Young used these studies as a base to develop the Master Plan for Maroubra Beach adopted in 1998.  The proposed development is appropriately sited within the Maroubra Beach area and is consistent with the plan of management.

 

It is considered that the proposal is related to and will promote the use and enjoyment of Maroubra Beach. The dining area is covered by a license agreement with Council and the proposal will provide the majority of the customers’ protection from the wind, rain and other varying weather conditions at the beachfront. The majority of customers are likely to be those utilising the adjacent beach and public open space.

 

It is considered that the development will not have any significant adverse impact on the other uses contained within the Maroubra Beach Pavilion or surrounding area, or that it will detrimentally impaction likely future use and character of the land.

 

8.2       Design

 

The design of the proposed enclosure is consistent with the character of the existing building and will not have any impact on the visual amenity of the area.

 

8.3       Acid Sulphate soils

 

The subject land has been defined to be affected by acid sulphate soils. However given that no excavation is proposed, it is considered that no disturbance to the acid sulphate soils is likely to occur.

 

8.4       Parking

 

The proposed access and loading/unloading and service facilities are to remain unchanged. The existing building and surrounding uses for the beach and public open space are well served by off-street car parking. There being a large car park immediately to the west of the pavilion building. As it is considered that the patrons of the enclosed seating area are most likely to be those already utilising the beach/open space and that no increase is proposed to the existing seating capacity of the kiosk/cafe, it is not considered that additional car parking spaces are required for this development.

 

 8.5      Hours of operation

 

The current hours of operation for the Pavilion kiosk/café are: -

 

Monday to Friday             8.30 am to 5.00pm

Saturday to Sunday          8.00 am to 5.30 pm

Friday and Saturday evenings (during Spring and Summer)             until 11.00 pm.

 

The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation to include evenings from Monday to Sunday (until 11.00 pm) all year round. Whilst the Licence Agreement currently allows the applicant to trade within the hours from 7.00 am to no later than 12.00 midnight, it is considered that the proposed use should not be intensified given it’s close proximity to residential dwelling situated within the pavilion building. Should the application be approved, it is therefore recommended that a condition is attached to restrict the hours of operation from 7.00 am to 10.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 11.00 pm Friday to Saturday.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development meets all relevant statutory requirements and will not have adverse environmental impact. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0433/2002 for Enclosed the open dining area of the pavilion cafe at Maroubra Beach and extend the existing seating area at 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra (Pavilion Cafe- Maroubra Beach) subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising of three (3) sheets numbered sheet 1 of 3 to sheet 3 of 3 dated 06/05/2002, received by Council on 14 May 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The hours of operation for the Pavilion kiosk/café are restricted from 7.00 am to 10.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 11.00 pm Friday to Saturday.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.         Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

4.         Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

5.         A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

6.         The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council's approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council's approval and relevant standards of construction, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

7.         Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council's Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

8.         Building materials, sand, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

9.         The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall meet all costs associated with the proposal.

 

10.       Prior to the operation of the extended seating area, the existing Licensee Agreement shall be amended to reflect the changes to the building and to the limits of the Licensed seating area. All costs associated with amending the license agreement shall be met by the Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café). The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0899), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

11.       There shall be no increase in the seating capacity of the kiosk/café.

 

12.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall ensure that the kiosk/café licensed area is maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

 

13.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall ensure that the pavement of the kiosk/café licensed area is maintained free of grease and other foodstuffs at all times.

 

14.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall, during the term of the agreement with Council, abide with any current or future Council Policy, Resolution or directive relative to the consumption of alcohol in public spaces.

 

15.       The Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall abide with any directive given by any utility authority in relation to access requirement to any utility within the proposed kiosk/café licensed area.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

The applicant is advised that this approval does not in any way confer or imply that the License Period will be extended or renewed other than may be permitted in the existing License Agreement.

 

The applicant is advised that in accordance with Clause 43, Part 3, of the existing License agreement the improvements remain the property of the Licensor, Randwick City Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 



 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 107/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

89-91 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA   

 

 

DATE:

3 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/285/96 'D'

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 285/96 ‘D’ Section 96 – modification to alter internal layouts of residential floors, resulting in a change in the proposed mix of units, relocation of lift and adjoining plant areas, internal rearrangement of ground floor and increase to the commercial tenancy area at ground floor level for 89-91 Boyce Road, MAROUBRA 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 25 November 2002.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING  

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

3 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/285/96 'D'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 - Modification to alter internal layouts of residential floors, resulting in a change in the proposed mix of units, relocation of lift and adjoining plant areas, internal rearrangement of ground floor and increase to the commercial tenancy area at ground floor level

PROPERTY:

 89-91 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 WSA PROPERTY SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the original application was determined by the Committee.

 

The application was notified to adjoining property owners and advertised in the local paper. No submissions were received in response to this notification. The main issues for consideration in the proposal is the change in the mix of units to incorporate one (1) bedroom units and the resultant impacts on the parking requirements for the development.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes a nine (9) storey building comprised of 42 units. The proposed unit mix is 14 x 1 bedroom units, 19 x 2 bedroom units and 9 x 3 bedroom units. Carparking for 61 vehicles is proposed over two basement carparking levels and a ground level, as currently approved. A commercial tenancy of 101.2m2 is proposed in the same location as originally proposed and accessed from Boyce Road. Residential entry to the building remains from Boyce Road, Bruce Bennetts Place and Glanfield Street. Access to the carparking remains from Bruce Bennett’s Place.

 

The following changes are proposed to the approved development plans:

 

-Changes to all Levels

§  Relocate lift and adjoining plant areas resulting in a reduction of the lobby area to each floor.

 

-Changes to Ground Floor

§  Swap pump room and bin enclosure to allow for garbage compactor and chute and recycle bins

§  Relocation of visitor car spaces and car wash bays

§  Relocate the visitor disabled WC

§  Increase the commercial area from 75m2 to 101m2 and delivery and disabled parking spaces adjusted to suit

 

-Change to Levels 4-6

§  Modifications to the 2 x 3 bedroom units on northeast and southeastern corners to provide 2 x 1 bedroom units each, that is an additional four one bedroom units per floor. The resulting composition of each of these floors will be 4 x 1 bedroom units and 3 x 2 bedroom units.

§  Provision of an external screen between the balconies provided to each of the one bedroom units proposed

§  Infilling a sliding wall with recessed masonry to retain the form of the opening to northeast and southeast units

§  Minor modification to windows on the southern elevation

§  Minor modification to windows on the northern elevation

 

-Change to Level 7

§  Changes to the unit on the southeastern side to provide 2 x 1 bedroom units

§  Changes to the northern side of the building to provide 3 x 3 bedroom units

§  The resulting composition of this floor will be 2 x 1 bedroom units, 1 x 2 bedroom unit and 3 x 3 bedroom units, including areas on the rooftop level which form part of two of the three bedroom units.

§  Minor modification to windows on the southern elevation

§  Enlargement of the window to the southeastern one bedroom unit and provision of an external screen between the proposed balconies to each of the one bedroom units

 

-Change to Level 8

§  Changes to reflect the deletion of the four bedroom penthouse over levels 7 and 8 in favour of two (2) x three (3) bedroom split-level units

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is a regular shaped allotment on the southern side of Boyce Road with an area of 1,248m2 and frontages (excluding corner splays) of 17.1m to Boyce Road and Glanfield Street (closed) , and 56.5m to Bruce Bennetts Place. A change in level of approximately 2m exists from north to south across the site.

 

To the west and south of the site are eight and twelve storey residential flat buildings (developed by Meriton). To the north on the opposite side of Boyce Road are dwelling houses of single and two-storey scale. To the east, on the opposite side of Bruce Bennetts Place is a three storey carpark and entry ramp to the Stockland Mall. This site was the subject of a recent development approval to construct a new shopping complex with approximately 550 residential units above.

 

The site has been excavated and piling and shoring works have been executed for construction of the approved basement carpark.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.   Application History

 

DA285/96

To erect a nine storey residential flat building, one commercial unit and carparking on the ground and basement levels. Development consent granted by the Health Building and Planning Committee.

 

DA285/96A

Section 102 application to modify Development Consent No. 285/96 by deleting the roof spire and swimming pool, adjustments to floor plans and basement carpark. Consent granted, subject to the retention of the roof spire and swimming pool.

 

DA285/96B

Section 102 application to modify Development Consent No. 285/96 by deletion of the swimming pool. Application withdrawn.

 

DA285/96

Consent No. 285/96 granted, extending development consent by 1 year to 8 September 2000.

 

DA285/96C

Section 96 application to modify Development Consent No. 285/96 to make internal modifications and reposition Levels 1 to 7 of the approved building 600mm eastwards to Bruce Bennetts Place to achieve BCA, Australian Standards compliance and structural adequacy. Deletion of the swimming pool to achieve disabled access. Revised balcony details on north and south elevations and amend Level 7 to Roof floor height. Deletion of conditions relating to privacy, loading and carparking also requested. Consent granted by Health Building and Planning Committee, subject to privacy screening measures to west facing windows and appropriate allocation of carparking in the basement.

 

The development consent for the development was activated when excavation for the basement carpark commenced prior to 8 September 2000.

 

The current application was lodged on October 17, 2002. Plans of amendments to the basement were not provided initially. These were received by Council on 24 October 2002, showing the revised location of the lift and services core, as proposed on upper floors.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on 29 October 2002. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1.      Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

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

 

An application has been received to modify development consent for a residential flat building at the above site.

 

The modifications to the development consent are primarily internal and include:

1.         Minor reduction in the building footprint

2.         Changes to the ground floor including:-

a.         Relocating the garbage room and installing a compactor with associated garbage chutes;

b.         Relocating the visitor spaces and carwash bays;

c.         Relocating the disabled WC; and

d.         Increasing the size of the commercial area.

3.         Changing the dwelling mix to include some one bedroom dwellings and increasing the total number of units from 34 to 42.

 

Waste Comments

 

Further to our memo dated 28 October 2002, a waste management plan has been submitted to Council which details:

·          The type/model of compactor to be installed;

·          The compaction ratio;

·          Calculations for the total number of bins required in the garbage room;

·          Provisions for recycling (It is noted that 21 x 240 litre recycling bins are required for the proposed development);

·          Details of the location and access to the garbage chutes on each floor

 

Council’s waste compliance officer has reviewed the submitted waste management plan and advises that:

 

The submitted details are generally in accordance with Council’s requirements and are considered to be satisfactory.

 

However, the submitted plans indicate that the commercial waste and recycling bins are to be stored in the same area of the compactor room as the residential garbage bins. The residential and commercial bin storage areas should be separated to prevent bins being used incorrectly.

 

The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to show the commercial garbage bin storage area being partitioned/separated from the residential garbage bins in the compactor room

 

Conditions proposed have been included in the conditions of consent.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area, the Master Plan requirements of Randwick LEP 1998 are not applicable.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP65)

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (including Draft Amendment 33)

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre

Draft Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan

Development Control Plan – Parking

Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

(a)  SEPP 65

 

Section 115, clause (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation (as amended) sets the requirements of SEPP 65 for considering section 96 applications. The clause provides that if the original development application did not require a design verification from a qualified designer (i.e: the original application was made 12 months or more after the commencement date of the SEPP) then consideration of the SEPP is unnecessary.

 

The original application was made in 1996. SEPP 65 commenced in July 2002. Detailed consideration of SEPP 65 is not required for this application. Notwithstanding this exclusion, the proposed modifications will not result in significant changes to the previously approved materials or built form of the proposal. The development will remain consistent with its context and provides a building of an appropriate scale and density in this location. The proposed modifications will not impact on the amenity provided to residents nor neighbours and the change in unit mix is considered to provide greater flexibility in providing for the needs of the local community. The proposal is consistent with the design principles of SEPP 65.

 

(b)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3A – General Business 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:-

 

Clause 32- Floor Space Ratio

Clause 33- Building Heights

 

Draft Amendment 33 to the RLEP98 is currently on exhibition. If adopted, the amendment will have the effect of removing the height, FSR and landscaping standards from the RLEP98, incorporates the number of storeys height control from the Draft DCP into the LEP and introduces objectives to ensure the ongoing vitality of Maroubra Junction and ensure the environmental and design quality of new residential flat developments.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in changes to the height or overall form of the development as originally approved. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the RLEP98.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

(a)    Development Control Plan No. 15 – Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre

 

The provisions of DCP No. 15 are currently under review following the completion of the Draft Maroubra Junction Urban Design Guidelines.

 

DCP No 15. – Maroubra Junction uses angled height planes to determine the height and form of buildings. No changes are proposed to the external building envelope or height of the building and the consistency of the development with DCP No. 15 will not change as a result of the proposed modification.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to DCP No.15.

 

 

(b)    Draft Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan

 

The Draft Maroubra Town Centre DCP has limited relevance to the application as it largely controls external building envelopes. The Draft also provides objectives for unit mix and minimum unit sizes, which have been considered under section 10.4 of this report.

 

(c)  Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP- Parking has been considered under section 10.7 of this report.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

(a)  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan has been considered under section 10.8 of this report.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1   Substantially the Same Development:

 

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”. The development has been modified on several occasions since the original granting of consent by the Health and Building Committee at its meeting of 19 November 1996. The current application to modify the existing consent must be considered against the development as originally approved.

 

Many of the differences between the original proposal and this application have already been approved under a previous s96 application DA 285/96C. The application is considered to result in a building that will be substantially the same as the previously approved development, being a mixed use, residential and commercial building of nine storeys in height. The external building envelope and visual bulk and scale of the development as currently approved will remain unaltered. The overall building height will not change as a result of the proposed modifications. A slight reduction in floor area will result from the changes. Despite the changes proposed to the unit mix, carparking provision and size of dwellings the proposal is considered to result in a development that is “substantially the same” as that currently approved, and therefore may be considered by Council under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2   Consideration of Submissions

 

No submissions were received as a result of the notification of the proposal.

 

 

 

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 Floor Space Ratio

 

No increase to the floor area of the approved development is proposed. A minor decrease in floor area will result from the modifications to the lobby areas on each level of the building.

 

10.2 Building Height, Bulk and Scale

 

No increase in the height of the approved development is proposed.

 

The proposed external changes to windows and provision of screens between balconies will not have a significant impact on the visual bulk and scale of the building. Where openings have been deleted on floors 4-6 recessed brickwork is proposed to maintain the form of the opening as viewed from the street. The proposal will not result in significant changes to the approved building envelope and is acceptable in terms of height, bulk and scale.

 

10.3 Urban Design

 

As the changes are generally internal in nature and any external changes are minor, the proposal will not detract from the design and external appearance of the development as currently approved.

 

10.4 Unit Mix/ Density

 

The Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan does not specify a preferred unit mix but does have the stated objective of providing a diversity of apartments (studios, 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments) to cater for different requirements. The proposed changes to the development as approved will increase the diversity of apartments and will provide greater choice for future residents/ owners. The proposal will provide additional one bedroom units which will cater to smaller households and will increase the affordability of the units. The proposal is consistent with the objective of the DCP.

 

The proposal provides two bedroom apartments with a minimum area of 85m2 and three bedroom apartments with a minimum area of approximately 110m2 and conforms to the minimum unit sizes for two and three bedroom apartments, being 85m2 and 95m2, respectively. The one bedroom apartments proposed have an area of 52.5m2 and do not comply with the minimum set by the DCP of 55m2. The non-compliance of each unit by 2.5m2 will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the units. The objective of the control is to ensure that room and apartment sizes/ proportions are adequate for their function. The rooms in the one bedroom units are regular in shape and have an adequate size, despite the non-compliance. The achievement of the objective and the provision of a variety of unit types within the approved envelope are considered to outweigh the non-compliance with the minimum area control.

 

The proposed increase in the area of the commercial tenancy at ground level from 75m2 to 101.2m2 will increase the potential tenant base without reducing amenity to residential units above, or having a significant impact on traffic and parking. The provision of a single commercial tenancy of this size in this location is considered appropriate and will provide an alternative to office space available in commercial developments elsewhere in the town centre (such as the recently approved Maroubra Mall development directly opposite the subject site). A retail tenant, such as a café or general store in this location may provide additional amenity to the surrounding residential buildings depending on the type of retailer and opening hours.

 

10.5 Social and Economic Impacts

 

It is considered that the proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the business zone. The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the site and the demographic characteristics of this population are likely to include, single persons or share households; young couples such as first home buyers; “empty nester” households; and young families. These groups are likely to be attracted by existing local facilities such as the availability of public transport and retail facilities in the area.

 

It is likely that there will be a mix of incomes amongst residents with some units being owner occupied and others being rented. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of existing services.

 

The development is regarded as satisfactory with regard to its social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

10.6 Impacts on Adjoining Development

 

Privacy and Overlooking

 

The proposal will result in a reduction in the size of windows in the northern and southern elevations. Windows in the northern elevation will be reduced from 2.5 metres wide to 1.7 on floors 4-6. Windows in the southern elevation will be reduced from 2.5 metres wide to between 1.7-2.0 metres wide on floors 4-7. The reduced window widths will result in a greater area of face brickwork to these elevations, which will not result in significant impacts to the amenity of the units or the visual appearance of the development.

 

A sliding door will be removed from the eastern elevation on levels 4-6 to the north and 4-7 to the south. This will be replaced with recessed brickwork to reflect the originally approved fenestration pattern of the building. The removal of this glazed area will reduce the potential for overlooking of surrounding residences and will ensure the privacy of proposed bedrooms.

 

The reduction in windows will ensure that the privacy impacts to surrounding residential buildings are not exacerbated by the increased number of dwellings.

 

Overshadowing

 

The proposal will not generate any additional overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties as no increases to the approved building envelope are proposed.

 

Views

 

The proposal will not interfere with existing view opportunities as no increases to the approved height or building envelope are proposed.

 

10.7 Carparking and Delivery Access

 

In terms of traffic generation the increased residential component is not expected to result in excessive additional traffic when compared with the approved development.

 

The Randwick DCP – Parking provides the applicable parking rates and controls for the site. The parking requirements for the proposed development under the DCP Parking are detailed in the table below-:

 

Development Control Plan Parking, 1998

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Commercial Parking

1 space per 40m2 GFA

(2.75spaces)

1 space (including 1 accessible space)

No

Accessible Parking

1-2% of commercial requirement (0.03 space)

1 space

Yes

Loading

1 space per 400m2 commercial GFA (0.28 space)

1 space

Yes1

Subtotal

4 spaces

2 spaces

No

Residential

 

 

 

1 bed

1 space per unit

(14 spaces)

14 spaces

Yes

2 bed

1.2 spaces per unit

(22.8 spaces)

23 spaces

Yes

3+ bed

1.5 spaces per unit

(10.5 spaces)

11 spaces

Yes

Visitor Spaces

1 per 4 dwellings

(10.5 spaces)

11 spaces

Yes

Carwash Bay

1 per 12 dwellings (can be visitor spaces) (3.5 spaces)

2 spaces

No*

Subtotal

59 spaces

59 spaces

Yes

Total

63 spaces

61 spaces

No

Bicycle Parking Commercial

 

1 per 10 vehicle spaces (1)

 

Not Indicated

 

No*

Residential

1 per 3 dwellings (14)

Not Indicated

No*

Visitor

1 per 10 dwellings (4)

Not Indicated

No*

Total

19

Not Indicated

No*

* Can be conditioned to comply.

1 To be shared with residential component of the building.

 

The residential component of the proposal complies with the requirements of the Randwick DCP- Parking. The proposal is deficient in terms of commercial parking, providing a single (1) space rather than the three (3) spaces required. The non-compliance with the commercial parking requirement is considered to be minor given that the development complies with the residential requirement of eleven (11) spaces, with eight (8) of them being provided at ground level, allowing spaces to be shared during regular business hours.

 

It is considered reasonable that the slight increase in commercial floor area proposed and its location on the edge of the commercial precinct will not generate significant additional parking requirements. The commercial tenancy may be utilised to service the immediate population such as a newsagency or general store type of use and it is unlikely that such a use would generate significant parking demand. The applicant has argued that many visitors to Maroubra make multi-purpose trips parking centrally and then walking to a range of retail facilities and services. This is accepted as a valid argument for varying the commercial carparking requirement in this case. A condition of consent requiring payment of a parking contribution under Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan has been included in the recommendation to provide for future public carparking in the town centre.

 

The proposed parking layout complies with the layout requirements of the DCP - Parking in terms of car space dimensions, aisle widths and the circulation radius of the ramp. Signage for visitor parking will need to be incorporated in Basement 1. Signage for the commercial parking will also need to be incorporated on the ground floor level. Conditions of consent have been proposed should consent be granted (see Condition 75).

 

A disabled parking space, and a space for service vehicles have been provided in accordance with the DCP – Parking. The development does not comply with the required number of carwash bays for a development of this size and a condition of consent requiring an additional two proposed visitors spaces be constructed for the dual purpose of carwashing has been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Condition 56). A bicycle storage area has not been provided, however there are several locations within the basement and ground floor levels where bicycle parking can be accommodated. Due to the perceived appeal of the additional one bedroom units proposed (to students) it is considered that the development should at least comply with Council’s requirement. A condition of consent has been proposed to ensure this occurs (see Condition 116).

 

No change is proposed to the vehicular access, which is provided from Bruce Bennett’s Place to the basement and ground level parking areas. Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the revised details and is satisfied that the development adequately caters to estimated traffic volumes and safety issues.

 

The proposal, subject to conditions of consent is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Council’s DCP – Parking.

 

10.8 Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

In light of the proposed changes to the unit mix and area of the commercial tenancy, the proposal has been reassessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and townscape totalling $112,119.30. Condition 16 of the original consent required payment of open space and community facilities contributions. This condition is to be removed and replaced with a revised condition.

 

The proposal is deficient in terms of commercial carparking and will require the payment of $22,250.00 in lieu of the provision in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for support subject to conditions relating to section 94 contributions and the allocation of parking. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and may therefore be approved by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.96/00285/DG on property No.89-91 Boyce Road, Maroubra in the following manner:-

 

1.         That Conditions No.s 1, 56, 75 be amended to read:

 

‘1     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the development consent dated 19 November 1996, as amended by the Section 102 application received on 2 May 1997 and the additional material received on 17 July 1997 and fax dated 24 July 1997, and further amended by the Section 96 application and the accompanying plans with Sheet Nos. A11 to A19 – Issue A dated as received by Council on 4 May 2001 except as superseded by the amendments made under the Section 96 application and the accompanying plans with Sheet No. A11-D dated as received by Council on 24 October 2002 and Sheet Nos. A12-E, A13-C, A14-C, A15-C, A17-C dated as received by Council on 17 October 2002 except as may be amended by the following conditions:”

 

56.     Four (4) covered car wash bays shall be provided for the development. The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water. Proof of Sydney Water’s approval shall be submitted to Council prior to release of the Construction certificate. Note, the car washing bays shall be located outside any required/ approved stormwater detention system and shall be suitably signposted. Visitor parking bays (other than any required parking bays for the disabled may also be used as car wash bays.

 

75.     The allocation of car parking spaces in the ground floor car park shall be as follows and will be clearly marked on the spaces:

 

-   Eight (8) spaces are to be provided for residential visitor parking

-   One (1) space is to be provided for use by tenants of the commercial units

-   One space being visitor space 9 be provided as a car parking bay for the disabled and shall have a minimum width of 3.2m

-   Visitors spaces Nos.6 and 7 are to remain as carwash bays and visitors spaces 4,5 shall also be provided as carwash bays

 

The allocation of car parking spaces on basement level 1 shall be as follows and will be clearly marked on the spaces:

 

-   Three (3) spaces (Spaces 1,2 and 3) are to be provided for residential visitor parking and are to be secured via an intercom system provided at the driveway entry.

 

Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate plans.

 

2.         That Condition Nos. 16 be deleted in favour of the following condition:

 

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

 

’16.      In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision or improvement of public open space in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $75,386.22. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of community facilities in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $33,332.68.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of townscape improvements in the Maroubra Junction town centre for an amount of $2,975.40. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of carparking in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $22,250.00. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

3.   That the following additional conditions be imposed:

 

116.     Fourteen (14) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in a secure location on the basement level 1 for the use of building residents.

 

Five (5) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in a secure location on the ground floor for the use of residential visitors and commercial visitors.

 

The bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the guidelines in Council’s DCP – Parking. Details of the bicycle parking are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

117.     The commercial garbage bin storage area shall be partitioned/separated from the residential garbage bins in the compactor room. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

118.     The commercial garbage bin storage area and the residential garbage rooms shall be clearly signposted.

 

119.     The garbage bin storage areas shall be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 108/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

9 Ron Filbee Place, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

3 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1136/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. D/1136/01’A’ Section 96 – modification to relocate stair access, reconfigure roof and external timber blinds 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 13 November 2002

2.  A4 Reduced Plans 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

13 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1136/01

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 - modification to relocate stair access, reconfigure roof and external timber blinds

PROPERTY:

 9 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Denis Messina

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

Approval was granted on 14 February 2002 to replace the existing roof with a trafficable flat roof, including internal stairway access from the first floor with 1.2m high opaque glass guard rails. The original plans were amended and subsequently approved, these plans were submitted due to concerns raised by adjoining owners. The amendments involved increasing the setback of the guard rail to 2m from the edge of the roof except for the rear setback which was approved at 1.9m.

 

The section 96 application relates to relocating the stair access from the first floor gallery as it involves a door/hatch system which is difficult to waterproof and proposes a spiral stair at the rear first floor balcony. The proposal also involves new parapet roof along the perimeter of the roof and new roof edge detail along the northern elevation.

 

The parapet wall proposed with this application has already been carried out without Council approval and prior to lodgement of this application. It is recommended that the new parapet details to the building be deleted from this consent and removed as it creates additional unnecessary height and bulk to the building and results in a lack of integration of the building with the streetscape. Concurrence of this condition has been obtained from the applicant/owner. No objections are generally seen to the relocation of the proposed stairs and is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The Section 96 application seeks approval to relocate the stairwell from the top floor to the roof deck as there is concerns as to the waterproofing of the door hatch system which opened up from the first floor onto the roof deck. The applicant is also seeking approval to create a new parapet wall along the perimeter of the building. The height of the parapet is staggered at the front elevation having a maximum height of approx 1.2m at the northern end, 0.85m and 0.4m at the southern end. Along the north western elevation, the parapet has a maximum height of approx 1.2m at the western end, 0.75m and 0.3m at the eastern end. Along the south eastern elevation, the parapet has a maximum height of approx 0.3m at the eastern side and 0.9m at the western side. Along the south western elevation, the parapet has a maximum height of approx 0.3m.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Ron Filbee Place and has a frontage of 13.379m, depth of 29m and a total site area of 385.23m2. It contains and existing double storey dwelling house. Adjoining the property to the east and west are existing double storey buildings. To the rear of the subject property is an existing double storey dwelling, and to its immediate north and south is an existing double storey and elevated single storey building respectively.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 3 December 2001 the applicant sought approval create a new opening from the existing first floor to the roof to create a trafficable roof deck. The application was amended on the 12 February 2002. The amendments involved maintaining a 2m setback from the boundaries, with the exception of the southern boundary which has a 1.9m setback.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Terry Brown    -           3 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra

 

-     Works which are proposed have already been constructed

 

Robert Frew    -           24 Torrington Road, Maroubra

 

-     The new proposal completely nullifies any benefits received after the modifications by Council

-     Reduces the only reasonable amount of sunlight property receives

-     With pedestrian traffic on the rear balcony and staircase, there will be more noise and less privacy

-     Lights and noise will be an annoyance when rooftop area is used nightly directly opposite bedrooms.

-     With parapet wall stated as being 800mm in height around perimeter wall the height is actually 1450mm high on rear southern wall

-     With such easy access to the area between the glass guardrail and the perimeter parapets it makes these areas a very trafficable one in the near future.

-     With the area south west of the guardrail now being relocated 1.1m to the rear it now increases the trafficable area another 9m2 approx.

 

Michael J McGrowdie -           18 Torrington Road, Maroubra

 

-     Object to any proposal which will reduce the setback of the roof deck from the roof edge.

-     Object to any proposal to replace the opaque glass guardrails to solid materials

-     Object to any proposal to permit entertainment on the roof top.

-     Building works have proceeded by way of departing from approved plans.

-     Increased trafficable area would lead to greater noise penetration

-     The parapet constructed without consent has added considerable bulk and scale and visual bulk to the building.

 

 

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 received notification that building works at 9 Ron Filbee Place, were not being carried out in accordance with the Development Consent, from a number of concerned residents. Council’s Building Surveyor investigated the alleged unauthorised building works, which revealed that works were not being carried out in accordance with the Development Consent in that a brick parapet wall approximately 800mm in height, located on the rooftop of the subject premises had been erected not in accordance with the development consent. As such, a Notice of Intention to serve an Order was issued upon the owner, which required the owner to show cause as to why Council should not take further action or issue an order. The notice also instructed the owner to cease all unauthorised works.

 

Council is only able to advise the owner or builder to cease any unauthorised works and as the original Development Consent was still valid, the owner is permitted to continue building works, as long as the works that are being carried out are in accordance with the original development consent.

 

As a result of further complaints Council officers have recently inspected the subject premises on a number of occasions, but were unable to substantiate that any further unauthorised works were being carried out.

 

A section 96 Application to modify the original Development Consent was lodged to Council for assessment on 30 September 2002. Consideration will be given in relation to the possible service of a Penalty Infringement Notice for the offence and possible service of an Order, upon determination of the Section 96 Application.

 

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 No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Proposal excessive in bulk and scale relative to surrounding foreshore development

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1   Substantially the same

 

The proposed amendments involve relocation of the stairwell access to the roof deck area, and the addition of new parapet walls around the perimeter of the building. The proposal is considered to constitute substantially the same development to that originally approved.

 

8.2   Consideration of submissions

 

As mentioned in Section 5.1 above, three submissions objecting to the proposed modifications were received. The issues raised in the submissions relate primarily to the unauthorised building works, excessive bulk and scale created by the new parapet wall and visual and acoustic privacy concerns from the new stair location.

 

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.

 

Proposed Design in relation to Existing building and Natural Environment

 

The application seeks approval for new parapet walls along the perimeter of the building, most of which have already been constructed. The parapet walls along the perimeter of the building create additional unnecessary bulk to the building. The proposed parapet adds additional height to the building and as such is excessive in scale relative to the surrounding development. An inspection of the site revealed the resultant building works disrupts the integrity of the building and lacks visual integration with the surrounding streetscape. Further, there is also concern that the parapet walls will result in the area between the guardrail and the parapet becoming trafficable. It is recommended that the application to construct new parapet walls along the perimeter of the building be refused and all unauthorised works removed. The development should reflect the current approved plans and the trafficable roof area maintain a 2m setback from all side boundaries with the exception of the rear southern boundary (see below).

 

Privacy and overlooking

 

The applicant is seeking approval to relocate the stairwell access to the roof top deck area. The stairwell access as originally approved was to be a hatch door access from the first floor gallery. The stairwell access is required to be relocated due to concerns regarding waterproofing of the rooftop opening which opened up directly into the first floor living area. The applicant now seeks to locate the stair access to the first floor balcony. In order to mitigate overlooking concerns, the applicant has proposed a permanent screen along the southern and western side of the stairwell. In order to access the new stairwell it has become necessary to increase the deck area by approx 6m2 plus the area which was previously used as the stairwell hatch/door and to provide a new landing at the top of the stair. This additional deck area was required to be deleted under the original approval in order to mitigate overlooking concerns. It is recommended that the additional deck area is to be deleted such that it is setback an additional 1.5m from the edge of the roof and is to be adequately screened from overlooking, with the opaque glass guardrails as per the original approval.

 

Other matters raised by objectors

 

Reduces the only reasonable amount of sunlight property receives

 

Comment:

 

Although there is an increase in the wall height of the development, shadow diagrams have not been submitted with the application. The parapet walls are to be deleted, should approval of the application be granted..

 

Lights and noise will be an annoyance when rooftop area is used nightly directly opposite bedrooms.

 

Comment:

The approval for the rooftop area to be used for trafficable purposes was assessed and approved previously under DA 1136/201. The Section 96 application does not change the area of the deck or alter its approved use..

 

With parapet wall stated as being 800mm in height around perimeter wall the height is actually 1450mm high on rear southern wall

 

Comment:

 

The rear southern wall has increased in height as a result of the new parapet. It is recommended that the parapet be deleted from this approval and the glass guardrail maintain a height of 1.2m as per the original approval.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The applicant is seeking to relocate the stairwell from a hatch door on the first floor living area to the rear first floor balcony. Adequate screening has been provided to preserve the amenity of the adjoining property. It is recommended that approval be granted to the request to relocate the stairwell.

 

In relation to the new parapet walls along the perimeter of the building, it is recommended that this be deleted from the approval as it creates additional unnecessary bulk to the building and may result in the area between the guardrails and the parapet walls be used for trafficable purposes.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.. 1136/2001 on property 9 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

“1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising of four (4) sheets numbered 00.163 issue C, dated October 2000 and received by Council on 12/02/2001 as amended by plans drawn by Geoform numbered 01 & 02 dated May 25 and received by Council on 20 November 2002 and plans drawn by John Spiteri numbered A.11.2 dated Oct 2000 and received by Council on 20 November 2002 and the fax consisting of one page, drawing Number CC03 and received by Council on 26 November 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.”

 

Add new condition No’s:

 

17.      In order to minimise overlooking concerns, the deck at the rear south-eastern side of the building is to be reduced in depth by 1.5m in order to maintain a 3.4m setback from the edge of the building, while the landing at the top of the stairwell is to be increased in depth by 1.5m.

 

18.      The parapet walls along the perimeter of the building be deleted as they create additional unnecessary bulk to the building and are excessive in scale relative to the surrounding development. Further, the parapet walls will result in the area between the guardrail and the parapet becoming trafficable.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 109/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

88-98 KING STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

4 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0540/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 540/2002 for construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 93 dwellings in 4 buildings, associated carparking for 130 residential vehicles and 60 for State Transit Authority use, and stratum sub-division 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 4 December 2002

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILLI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

4 December, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0540/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 93 dwelling in 4 buildings, associated carparking for 130 residential vehicles and 60 for State Transit Authority use, and stratum subdivision

PROPERTY:

 88-98 King Street, RANDWICK

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 De La Vega Architects Pty. Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Committee as it is valued at $19 Million.

 

It is proposed to erect a residential development comprising 4 buildings containing 93 dwellings units and stratum sub-division such that the basement level B2 is sub-divided into a carparking area for the exclusive use of the State Transit Authority (STA). The proposal is an integrated development as a licence is required from the Department of Land and Water Conservation for dewatering of the site.

 

The application initially proposed a total of 96 dwellings units. However, following discussions with Council’s officers, the design and layout of the proposal was amended to provide for a 10m separation between the upper floors of Building 3 in accordance with the adopted Master Plan resulting in a reduction in the total number of dwelling units to 93. The proposal was also amended to provide additional depth and interest to its design and appearance. The amended plans were advertised and notified on 22 October 2002.

 

The proposed building will have a contemporary design that blends in well with the existing heritage chimney at the front and suits the character of the locality using a simple yet effective combination of rendered and face brick-work.

 

The proposal complies with all the statutory controls applicable to the site with the exception of the maximum 0.9 : 1 Floor Space Ratio control, the maximum 10m external wall height control and the maximum 12m building height control. The applicant has submitted objections to these controls under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP No.1). An assessment of the objections indicates that the strict compliance with these numeric controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The proposal would be suitable for the site and would have minimal impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal primarily is for the erection of 4 buildings containing 93 residential units. Buildings 1 and 2 will have frontage to King Street and run lengthwise along the western and eastern boundaries respectively. Building 3 will be orientated east to west and located in the middle of the site. Building 4 similarly will be orientated east to west and located at the northern end of the site.

 

The proposal will have the following characteristics:

 

§ Building 1 : 4 storey building with 3 storeys above the King Street level containing 12 one-bedrooms and 7 two-bedrooms units.

 

§ Building 2 : 4 storey building with 3 storeys above the King Street level containing 12 one bed room and 8 two-bedroom units.

 

§ Building 3 : 6 storey building with 5 levels above the King Street level containing 15 one-bedroom and 13 two-bedroom units.

 

§ Building 4 : 4 storey building with 3 storeys above the King Street level containing 15 one-bedroom and 11 two-bedroom units.

 

Pedestrian access to the proposed development will be provided from King Street. A pathway will be provided through the subject site, which will form part of an overall pedestrian/bicycle pathway linking Govett Lane and King Street in the future. Vehicular access will be provided via King Street.

 

Car parking for the development would be accommodated within 2 basement levels containing 130 car parking spaces for residents and 60 spaces for the use of employees of the adjacent STA development. The proposal involves stratum sub-division of the property to allow the STA carpark in the lower basement (Level B2) to be alloted for the exclusive use and ownership of the STA.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the northern side of King Street in Randwick.  It is 7032sqm in area and has a frontage to King Street of 58.58m.

 

The land is located immediately east of a State Transit Authority (STA) bus depot.  The land was previously part of the bus depot site.  It is still owned by the State Transit Authority and its sale is subject to a requirement to provide 60 car parking spaces for STA staff.

 

Land surrounding the site includes:

 

To the west – STA bus depot, which includes a large workshop building setback 15m from the site’s western boundary;

To the north University Press Building, which includes a large workshop building located along the site’s northern boundary (the building’s eaves overhang the site);

To the east –Moriah Preschool facility and vacant land (formerly part of the bus depot) owned by the Montefiore Jewish Home and proposed for development of an aged care facility;

To the south – on the opposite site of King Street residential properties including dwelling houses and multi-unit buildings.

 

Apart from the bus depot and university press buildings, the locality is predominantly residential.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

 

4.1       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application follows the submission and adoption of a Master Plan for the subject site. The adopted Master Plan essentially provides for the development of the land for approximately 95 dwelling units contained in 4 building blocks with associated basement carparking for residents as well as 60 STA staff.

 

4.2       HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The site previously formed part of the largest depot for Sydney’s tram system. The depot dated from circa 1881. It later became a depot for the bus system. The bus depot operations on the site ceased in 1985 and the buildings have been largely demolished.  A 45m high brick chimney stack from a former boiler house remains on the site, adjacent to the King Street frontage.  The chimney is visible from a number of locations in the surrounding area and is a prominent local landmark and reference to the historic use of the site.  It is recognised as one of the major industrial chimney stacks surviving in NSW.  

 

Substantial earthworks have taken place across the site as part of the former depot and its demolition.  The levels in the centre of the site are up to 3m below the levels adjacent to King Street, and there is a concrete stockpile towards the rear boundary.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Both the original and amended proposals were notified, advertised and referred to the Precinct Committee in accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1       Objections to original proposal

 

G Roth and S Acret, 5 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Increase in traffic on Dangar Street

§ Appearance not in keeping with heritage listed properties in the locality.

 

E. Au-Yong, 57 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Lack of community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Detrimental impact on amenity and character of local area

 

A & H Leondiou

 

§ Landscaping does not comply with the Master Plan

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Inadequate community open space.

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

§ Cumulative increase in traffic and shortage in carparking

 

James O’Farrell 63 Dangar Street, Randwick (Chairperson of the Randwick Centennial Park Precinct)

 

§ Development application contains errors.

§ Excess in number of units compared with that approved in the Master Plan.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ No community consultation or contact with members of the Precinct Committee

§ Inadequate dwelling units with barrier free access (disabled access) and inadequate disabled carparking.

§ No consideration of the cumulative impact of traffic from other new development.

§ No provision for off street garbage collection

§ No details of who is responsible for future maintenance of STA parking area.

§ No provision has been made for affordable housing.

§ Precinct should have been involved in the preDA process.

 

A. Lee, 93 King Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Increased traffic and parking problems

 

J. Hansen, 9 Mort Street, Randwick

 

§ Density of housing increased and usage will be more intense than that provided for in the Master Plan.

§ Inadequate community open space

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

 

A Boot, 71 King Street, Randwick

 

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

§ Inadequate deep planting landscape area.

§ Increased traffic impact on area

§ No provisions for affordable housing.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

 

 L. Ryan, 63 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Density of housing increased and usage will be more intense than that provided for in the Master Plan.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ Surrounding streets are already suffering traffic overload.

§ Separation between Buildings 1, 2 and 3 does not comply with the Master Plan

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

§ Out of character and inadequate transition with existing dwelling houses in the heritage conservation area

§ Breach of height limit is inappropriate in the zoning.

§ Landscape area does not comply with Randwick LEP.

§ No provision for affordable housing.

§ Design does not blend with existing surrounding dwelling houses.

 

L Dixon and J Ewart, 51 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Inadequate community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ Surrounding streets are already suffering traffic overload.

§ Out of character and inadequate transition with existing dwelling houses in the heritage conservation area

§ Separation between Buildings 1, 2 and 3 does not comply with the Master Plan

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

 

K Morris, 3 Monmouth Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Density of housing has increased significantly from that approved in the Master Plan.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

 

L Pereira, 9 Monmouth Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Density of housing has increased significantly from that approved in the Master Plan.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

 

J Pereira, 2 Govett Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Density of housing has increased significantly from that approved in the Master Plan.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

 

A Morris &  J. Brooks, 17 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Density of housing has increased significantly from that approved in the Master Plan.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ The proposed sloped skylights are industrial looking and not in keeping with the area.

§ Existing preschool should not be retained as it blocks main entrance to the adjoining Montefiore development.

§ Proposed materials are inferior and lead to rapid deterioration.

 

R. Scott, 56 Wentworth Street, Randwick

 

§ Inadequate community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control for no good reason.

§ Proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

 

A & G Denney, 65 Dangar Street

 

§ Density of housing increased and usage will be more intense than that provided for in the Master Plan.

§ Inadequate community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ Surrounding streets are already suffering traffic overload.

§ Separation between Buildings 1, 2 and 3 does not comply with the Master Plan

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

§ Out of character and inadequate transition with existing dwelling houses in the heritage conservation area

§ Breach of height limit is inappropriate in the zoning.

§ Landscape area does not comply with Randwick LEP.

§ No provision for affordable housing.

§ Design does not blend with existing surrounding dwelling houses.

 

D Hetherington, 27 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Density of housing increased and usage will be more intense than that provided for in the Master Plan.

§ Inadequate community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ Surrounding streets are already suffering traffic overload.

§ Separation between Buildings 1, 2 and 3 does not comply with the Master Plan

§ Separation between upper levels of Building 3 is less than the 10 m required in the Master Plan.

§ Out of character and inadequate transition with existing dwelling houses in the heritage conservation area

§ Breach of height limit is inappropriate in the zoning.

§ Landscape area does not comply with Randwick LEP.

§ No provision for affordable housing.

§ Design does not blend with existing surrounding dwelling houses.

 

R. Harvey, 1/89-91 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal is well in excess of the height and FSR controls of the Randwick LEP.

§ Traffic report is does not assess the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ A number of traffic and parking arrangements be implemented in conjunction with all new developments in the area.

 

Unnamed objector, 11/2 Prince Street

 

§ Density is too great for the local area.

§ Character of King Street will be adversely affected.

§ Excessive bulk, scale and size.

§ Inadequate community open space in the proposal.

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Traffic report is inadequate as no assessment of the cumulative traffic and parking impact from other proposed development in the area.

§ Inadequate entrance and exit points.

§ Proposed building will block breeze and ventilation.

§ Increased noise pollution and noise from construction.

§ Landscape area does not comply with Randwick LEP.

§ Overdevelopment results in inadequate utility services.

 

S & F Joseph, 28 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Incorrect heritage statement submitted.

§ Proposed Building 3 is too high.

§ Cell block design is inappropriate.

 

R & T Laurendet, 20 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Design and appearance is inappropriate for the area.

§ Proposal will have a detrimental impact on surrounding neighbourhood.

§ There has been no consultation of the local community

§ Increased traffic volumes and congestion.

 

R Foord, Windeyer Chambers, 225 Macquarie Street, Sydney (owner of 16 Dangar Street)

 

§ Three proposed large developments will have detrimental impact on largely single-dwellings in the area.

§ Proposal will be out of character with largely Federation-type developments in the area.

§ Proposal will exacerbate increase in traffic volumes and movements resulting congestion.

§ Size of the development is inappropriate.

 

5.2       Objections to amended proposal

 

R & T Laurendet, 20 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

§ Proposal exceeds the Randwick LEP height and FSR control

§ Design and appearance is inappropriate for the area.

§ Proposal will have a detrimental impact on surrounding neighbourhood.

§ There has been no consultation of the local community

§ Increased traffic volumes and congestion.

 

R and J Jones, 53 Govett Street, Randwick

 

§ Building height exceeds Council’s standard

§ Appearance is at variance to surrounding dwellings

§ Footpath between Govett Lane and King Street not shown on plans

 

5.3       Support for original and amended proposals

 

§ No letter in support of the original and amended application was received.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1       Building and Construction 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 Statutory Site Audit Statement (SAS) and Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) have been prepared by Ross McFarland of CH2M Hill Australia Pty Ltd and submitted with the DA. The SAS is conditional. The conditions are to be incorporated into the development approval.

 

Acoustic Assessment:

 

An acoustical assessment has been prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates Pty Ltd dated 20 November, 2002 and submitted as part of the development application. The assessment has been reviewed and recommended actions are to be incorporated as part of the development consent conditions.

 

Waste Storage:

 

Has not been assessed by the Environmental Health Unit.

 

Botany Basin:

 

The Botany Basin Aquifer is located beneath the subject development site. The concurrence of the DLWC will be required. Issues surrounding dewatering and settling may be required to be addressed.”

 

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, including:

 

Three (3) Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located within Council’s nature strip. These trees are between 4 and 8 metres tall, are in good health and as such they should be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

Two (2) Acacia species (Wattle Trees) located within the south western corner of the site. These trees are approximately 4-5 metres tall with broad canopies. Given that Wattles have short lifespans, permission should be granted for the removal of these trees.

 

One (1) Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located along the southern property boundary, close to the existing chimney. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in good health. The proposed development incorporates a large grid planting of native trees at the front of the site and in order to keep this theme and not detract from the overall design, permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.”

 

6.4       Drainage Issues

 

Council Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

This development site is affected and/or burdened by the following stormwater drainage culverts (and easements):-

 

a 750 mm diameter stormwater pipeline that drains the intersection of King and Church Streets.

 

Notes:

-     “an easement to drain water over existing line of pipes (approx. position)” has been created over the development site for the 750 mm diameter pipeline.

-     this pipeline also burdens the upstream property at 100-120 King Street which has recently been approved for a Residential Aged Care Facility).

 

A 450 mm diameter stormwater pipeline that presently discharges via a converter to the northern side kerb and gutter in King Street approximately 50metres upstream of the development site (converter is opposite to 91-93 King Street).

 

There is a localised low point adjacent to100-120 King Street in Govett Lane. Preliminary stormwater drainage investigations indicate that the 1.143 x 1.066 box culvert has the capacity to drain a 1 in 5 year flood in Govett Lane. For floods greater than 1 in 5 year occurrence, stormwater will overflow from this low point and drain into the adjacent site at 100-120 King Street then into this development site and generally infiltrate to ground.

 

Note that both 88-98 King St and 100-120 King St 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)

 

Development site at 100-120 King Street

 

The following stormwater conditions were imposed on the recent development consent for the adjacent site within 100-120 King Street: -

 

relocate and upgrade the existing 750 mm and 1200 mm diameter pipelines that burden the site.

 

construct a stormwater culvert from the low point in Dangar Street to discharge into the stormwater system in King Street. This pipeline has been designed to drain the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

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.

 

To redevelop 88-98 King Street , the applicant will be required to:-

 

Replace the existing 750 mm diameter stormwater pipeline that presently burdens the site with a 1200 mm diameter pipeline.

 

construct a stormwater culvert in King Street between the eastern boundary of the development site and the existing Council stormwater pit that is located approximately 20 metres west of the development site. 

 

Note that this culvert will be a continuation of the proposed stormwater system to drain the low point in Dangar Street (part of the conditions of development consent for 100-120 King Street -DA 551/2002). This pipeline will be required to be designed to drain the 1 in 100 year storm and to surcharge where it connects to the existing stormwater pit.

 

drain the overland flow from Govett Lane and 100-120 King St in accordance with either Options 1 or 2 as detailed  in the submitted report titled  “Overland flow Analysis & Trunk Drainage Options Report compiled by Warren Smith and Partners Pty Ltd for Lot 201(88-98), King Street Randwick Project No. 2422a dated 25TH November 2002 Revision C (this report details 3 options for draining the overland flow from Govett Lane). 

 

Option 1: to upgrade the existing stormwater drainage system that drains the low point of Govett Lane to the pond system in Centennial Park. The resultant stormwater system will have a capacity in excess of a 1 in 100 year flood. The submitted details show that a 1650 mm diameter pipeline will be required to be constructed in parallel to the existing box culvert.This concept is the applicant’s preferred option, however the proposal will be dependant on the Centennial and Moore Park Trust agreeing to this proposal.

 

Option  2: to provide an overland flow path through the development site to King Street. This option is in general accordance with the approved Master Plan.

 

To help ensure that stormwater will not inundate buildings 1, 2 and 3, the applicant’s stormwater drainage engineer has proposed the following:-

 

For buildings 1 and 2

To construct a landing at RL 40.35 adjacent to the front door.

Wheelchair access to this landing is to be provided within part of the 1.8 metre wide landscaping area (where a Metrosideros exceisa hedge is proposed).

A wheelchair ramp will be also required from the landing to the proposed internal floor level (ie RL40.00)

The EPCD Department should determine:-

-     the minimum width for the wheel chair access and landing (a safety hand rail should be provided along the perimeter of the ramp and landing)

-     whether the wheelchair  ramps within the buildings are appropriate or if these buildings should be raised by 350 mm so that the King Street level floor is constructed at RL 40.35

                       

For building 3

Relocated the entrance door outside the proposed  stormwater flowpath. (This door will be approximately 6 metres further to the west of the door indicated on the architectural drawings).

                       

Notes

-     a flood proof wall (or similar) approximately 450 mm high would be required to be constructed along the frontages of buildings 1 and 2 and along the south eastern frontage of building 3.

 

-     the applicant will be required to create an easement for overland flow purposes over the resultant overland flow structure/pathway. The description of the easement will be required to be worded so that the structure/overland flow path is repaired and maintained by the owner/s of Lot 88-98 King Street.

 

Option 3: to direct the overland flow onto the adjacent Bus Depot site at 86 King Street.

 

It is considered that this concept will adversely affect 86 King Street by:-

 

-     increasing the both the frequency and the depth of stormwater within the existing above ground detention area within this property.

 

-     require a stormwater drainage easement to be created to benefit Council. (such easement would cover a large portion of the existing Bus depot site).

 

Option 3 is not considered acceptable by the Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services.

 

The applicant has nominated Council as the Certifying Authority (in writing) for the works exterior to the development site, The final design, specifications and details for the Council stormwater culverts and other infrastructure therefore can be submitted and approved of by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to any building works being constructed on the development site.

 

Ground Water

 

The applicant’s geotechnical engineer has determined that the lowest basement level will be constructed approximately 5.20 metres below the water table level and dewatering of the site will be required.  The geotechnical engineer has recommended that the extracted groundwater be disposed of by either discharging to the sewer by a trade waste agreement with Sydney Water or the water be treated to remove pollutants and discharged to the stormwater.

 

As the proposed dewatering may cause some settlement around the perimeter of the site and adversely affect the adjacent buildings, the extracted groundwater should be reinjected to ground to help minimise any settlement. Such reinjection should be also approved of by the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

 

The DIAS has concerns regarding ground water given the following:-

 

Groundwater was measured at RL36.20 on the 1 October 2002 at borehole 7.

Building 2 is upstream of the carpark (and located where this borehole reading was taken).

the Level 1 units are proposed to be constructed at RL 37.00  (ie 800 mm above this groundwater level)

the proposed carpark area could partially dam the groundwater movement, and cause a locally raised groundwater level.

there is a further potential of a higher watertable level during prolonged storm events.

 

The applicant’s geotechnical engineer should be determine whether the Level 1 units would be at risk of groundwater inundation, and if so, determine a means of providing protection (eg “tanking” the units and providing a higher landscaped area) . Any recommendations by the Geotechnical Engineer shall form part of the development consent conditions (eg tanking of the units to a suitable level.

 

Note that dewatering (except by reinjection to ground) will not be considered.

 

The Director of Environmental Planning should comment on the settlement around the perimeter of the site”

 

6.5       Waste Management Issues

 

Council Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services raises advises that prior to lodging the construction certificate for building works the applicant will submit to Council for approval of a Waste Management Plan that details the proposed method of storage and collection of all waste.

 

6.6       Traffic/Parking Issues

 

Council Traffic Engineer advises as follows:

 

Parking

 

The proposal provides for 93 residential dwellings comprising of:

 

54 x  1 bedroom units

39 x  2 bedroom units

 

The parking requirement as per Council’s DCP-Parking is:

 

54x1 = 54

39x1.2 = 46.8

93/4  = 23.2

 

Hence a total of 124 spaces are required. A further 60 spaces are required for STA Bus Depot staff.

 

Bicycle Parking requirements are 1/3 units plus 1 visitor space/10 units.

95/3 + 95/10 = 41 spaces

 

The proposal provides a total of 130 spaces (not including STA car parking provision) comprising the following:

 

Level B1          75 Residential

                        17 Visitor

 

Level B2          31 Residential

                        7 Visitor         

                        31 Bicycle

                        60 STA staff

 

Traffic Generation

 

Peak Hour Extra trips

 

95 x 0.5 = 47.5

 

A total of 48 trips/ peak hour will be generated by the residential development which can be accommodated by the surrounding road network.

 

Traffic Calming

 

In order to prevent vehicles from dangerously traveling directly from the access point to  Prince Street and to provide a safe pedestrian environment, a pedestrian refuge should be constructed in King Street between Prince Street and the access to the development. This will also act as a speed calming device by narrowing the carriageway. 

 

Access & Circulation

 

The access driveway and car parking configurations are considered satisfactory provided that a boom gate is installed at the entrance to the STA car park facility in order to prevent any overflow parking from the residential component of the development.

 

 

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

 

THAT the Director of Environmental Planning and City Development be advised that:

 

The number of car parking spaces proposed for the residential development complies with Council’s DCP-Parking.

 

The car parking space dimensions of 2.4 x 5.4 metres does not comply with Council’s DCP-Parking, however does comply with Australian Standard requirements.  

 

STA staff car park requires the installation of a boom gate at the entrance to prevent residential car park overflow into this area.

 

A pedestrian refuge should be constructed in King Street between Prince Street and the access to the development.

 

A roundabout is to be constructed at the King Street/Dangar Street intersection.

 

Visitor car spaces and bicycle parking areas should be clearly signposted and linemarked.

 

Pavement Arrows are to be installed throughout the car parking levels to clearly define the direction of travel for vehicles. 

 

A 6 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ should be installed 6 metres either side of the access location in King Street to enable adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the site. 

 

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 as follows:

 

“Refer to my previous memo on the Master Plan for the site for background to the proposal.  My previous memo raised concerns in relation to the timing of conservation works to the chimney on the site, required by DCP No.18 to be carried out prior to the sale of land by the State Transit Authority.  It was also suggested that design changes be made to the footprint of the proposal to improve the setting and backdrop of the chimney.  The development application drawings which have been received incorporate these recommended design changes.  The Master Plan for the site was adopted subject to a number of heritage issues being addressed at the future development application stage.  These matters related to the implementation of the Conservation Plan in conjunction with the proposed development, the provision of interpretative material, an archival recording, a maintenance schedule, and that “the finished ground levels around the base of the chimney and the extent of excavation and other works associated with the basement car park are to be determined having regard to the Conservation Plan and any necessary structural analysis to ensure the long term stability of the chimney.”  It was considered that the issues of the proximity of the excavation for the basement carpark to the chimney and the proposal to raise the existing ground level around the chimney will require the submission of further detail before the heritage impacts could be adequately assessed.

 

The development application has been accompanied by a further supporting information dated 31 May and 29 July, prepared by Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners, relating to ground levels and open space around the chimney, interpretative material, archival recording, conservation works and a maintenance schedule.

 

In relation to interpretative material, the additional submission includes wording for a metal inscription plaque on the southern face of the chimney (facing King Street), at street level.  The proposed wording is satisfactory, and an appropriate consent condition should be included.

 

In relation to archival recording, the additional submission proposes that measurements and photographs be taken form the construction scaffold during/following conservation works.  This is considered to be satisfactory and an appropriate consent condition should be provided.

 

In relation to conservation works, the additional submission proposes that these be in the main those proposed by Brian McDonald, including option/proposal 2 in relation to earthquake stabilisation.  An appropriate consent condition should be provided.

 

In relation to future maintenance of the chimney, the additional submission provides a schedule which includes annual maintenance, 5 yearly inspections and 10 yearly inspections.  The submission recommends that a formal maintenance schedule and outline of responsibilities for the strata be submitted to Council as “part of the development application for registration of the strata.”  The maintenance schedule is considered to be satisfactory and an appropriate consent condition should be included.

 

In relation to ground levels, it is proposed to raise the ground levels to the northern, eastern and western sides of the chimney to match the footpath level on the southern side of the chimney.  The submission notes that the conservation plan advocates a deck at street level, unavoidably obscuring the base of the chimney.  In detail, it is proposed to record and remove the buttresses to the west above the new ground level, record and remove the tunnel on the east elevation and record and remove the pit structure.  It is further recommended in the submission that information about the industrial process shown by the lower level detail of the chimney should be documented, but notes that the exact operational importance of these details has not been investigated to date. 

 

In relation to the structural impact of changes to the finished ground levels around the base of the chimney and the extent of excavation and other works associated with the basement car park, it appears that no further structural analysis in relation to the stability of the chimney has been carried out as required by the Master Plan to be addressed at development application stage.  The development application drawings indicate that the external wall to the proposed basement carpark is to be around 6m from the edge of the 46m high chimney.  It is not known whether or not the applicant has carried out any site investigation to determine the distance the existing footings of the chimney project beyond the parts which are visible above ground.  These structural impact issues should be addressed prior to issue of any development consent.

 

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·    Details of the size, material and fixing of the proposed interpretative plaque are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.  Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

·    An archival recording of the chimney, including its base, shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Three copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

·    The Conservation Plan for the brick chimney on the site, prepared by Brian McDonald and Associates in 1994, including option/proposal 2 in relation to earthquake stabilisation, shall be implemented in conjunction with the works which are the subject of this development application.  An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the implementation of the Conservation Plan, to ensure timely maintenance and repair of the heritage item, based on technically sound and appropriate construction methods.  All work shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

 

·    The maintenance schedule is to cover the responsibility for organisation and funding of the conservation works.  It is suggested that Body Corporate take responsibility for the conservation works and that a maintenance fund be established.  Alternatively a Section 88E instrument could be prepared to cover the chimney and including the schedule of conservation works.  The issue of responsibility for organisation and funding of on-going maintenance is to be resolved prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development

 

6.8       Issues Raised by External Bodies

 

6.8.1    Department of Land and Water Conservation

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has advised that a permit is required in relation to the proposed development. The Department, accordingly, has attached the Department’s General Terms of Approval (GTA), all of which must be included as part of any consent given by Council.

 

6.8.2    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 a roundabout at the King Street/Dangar Street intersection.

§ Installation of painted median island and road flaps on King Street at Prince Street to restrict vehicles travelling directly from Prince Street into the King Street access to the development.

§ The installation of pedestrian refuges on King Street to improve pedestrian access to the site

§ Access to the STA carpark should be designed to minimise potential conflict between STA buses and private vehicles.

§ “No stopping” restrictions should be imposed at least 6m either side of the proposed access locations to enable adequate sight distances.

§ Parking and internal accessways designed 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 multi-unit housing and STA carparking was adopted by Council on 9 April 2002 subject to a number of variations and requirements for submission of future development applications.

 

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. The proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent in the zone. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal.

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

 

31 – Landscape Area

 

Min. 50 % of site area

 

 

 

Max. 50% of landscaped areas allowed over podiums or excavated basement.

 

 

The proposal provides landscape area comprising 60.5% of site area.

 

Max 47% of landscape areas over podium/excavated basement.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

32 – FSR

 

 

 

 

Max. FSR for Zone 2C = 0.9 :1 or 0.65:1 for sites less than 700 sqm.

 

 

Max FSR  of 1.1:1 for subject site (7032 sqm)

 

 No (SEPP No. 1 submitted - see Section 10.1.2.1 below)

 

33 – Building Height

 

Max building height for Zone 2C = 12m

 

Max. height = 15.5m.

 

No (SEPP No. 1 submitted - see Section 10.1.2.1 below)

 

33 – External Wall Height

 

Max External Wall Height for Zone 2C = 10m

 

Max. wall height = 15.5m.

 

No (SEPP No. 1 submitted - 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  submitted and found to meet documentation requirements for preservation of heritage chimney.

 

Yes – see Section 6.7 above.

 

8.2       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 11 (Traffic Generating Development)

 

SEPP 11 divides development into a two categories (under Schedules 1 and 2) which, depending on their size and anticipated impacts, are required to be referred to the relevant Traffic Authority for comments. The Traffic Authority for which development under Schedule 1 is to be referred to is the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC). The proposal has accordingly been referred to the SRDAC for comments.

 

8.3       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation

 

SEPP 32 aims to promote the development of land by enabling urban land which is no longer required for the purpose for which it currently is zoned or used, to be redeveloped for multi-unit housing and related development, and to implement a policy of urban consolidation where a diverse range of housing types is to be developed in urban localities close to existing transport, employment and community facilities.

 

The proposal involves the reuse and redevelopment of surplus land in the STA bus depot site for multi-unit housing. The proposal is consistent with an adopted Master Plan that will primarily introduce a range of housing types thus increasing the availability of housing in the locality close to existing transport and community facilities.

 

8.4       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land)

 

SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Clause 7 of the Policy states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

 

(a)  it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)  if land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)  if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

The applicant has submitted a conditional Statutory Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report with the application.

 

8.5       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

SEPP 65 sets out design quality principles for residential flat buildings, which must be taken into consideration by a consent authority. The design quality principles relate to general approach, context, scale, built form, density, aesthetics, amenity, resources, energy and water efficiency, social dimensions and safety and security.

 

The applicant has provided advice incorporating the design quality principles of SEPP 65 which are in turn reflected in the façade treatment and design of the proposed development, its scale and proportion, and visual presentation in the streetscape (see Section 10.4 below).

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

9.1       Development Control Plan  – Car Parking

 

Number of car parking spaces:

 

 

 

 

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

Residential

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

54 x one bedroom dwellings

54 spaces

 

 

106 residential carspaces

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

39 x two bedroom dwellings

46.8 spaces

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 93

23.2 spaces

24 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

124 spaces

130 spaces

 

The proposal will also provide 60 carparking spaces for the STA as part of a private arrangement between the applicant and the STA.

 

9.2       Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or performance solutions)

 

 

LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1            Sufficient size to allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum  dimensions for  landscaped area is 2m.

 

 

Landscaped areas to the rear, front and sides of the proposal will have dimensions greater than 2 sqm.

 

 

P2            Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided

communal open space.

 

 

All landscaped areas around the proposal will be undivided communal open space.

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3           

·   Provides privacy.

·   Is accessible from main living areas.

·   Provides outdoor recreation and living.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal provides private open space mainly in the form of balconies and opportunities for outdoor recreation and living.

 

 

NA

 

 

Townhouses, row housing, villa housing etc

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

NA (Proposal is for multi-unit apartments).

 

 

Flats and apartments

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

All dwellings have direct access to balconies/terraces.

 

 

SETBACKS

 

P1 The front setback is consistent with setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback in the street.

 

 

 

 

P2   Side setback ensures adequate separation between building to maintain solar access and minimize overshadowing; reasonable levels of privacy; adequate landscaping and private open space; and streetscape amenity

 

 

Rear setback to ensure

adequate separation between building to maintain solar access and minimize overshadowing; reasonable levels of privacy; adequate landscaping and private open space; and buildings are built across rather than down the length of a site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Side Boundary: Min average Setback = 4m. No part of the building is closer than 2.5m. Max length of wall without articulation = 10m. Min length of step =3m

 

 

 

S3   Rear Boundary:

Min average Setback = 6m. No part of the building is closer than 4.5m. Max length of wall without articulation = 10m. Min length of step =3m

 

 

Front setback:

Proposal will not be inconsistent with the setback of existing properties on the northern side of King Street and the setback of future aged self-care terraces fronting King Street in the adjoining Montefiore site.

 

Eastern side:

Minimum Average setback = 6.2m and minimum setback = 4m. (Complies with Preferred Solution).

 

Western side:

Minimum Average setback = 6.2m and minimum setback = 4.1m. (Complies with Preferred Solution).

 

 

 

Rear setback:

Minimum average setback = 10m; minimum setback = 10m (Complies with Preferred Solution)

 

 

PRIVACY

 

Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Proposal will create minimal overlooking of adjoining properties as it will face King Street to the north, the STA Bus Depot site to the west, the University Press Building to the north, the future Montefiore aged care facility to the east which will be largely be orientated to Dangar Street at a distance of more than 15m away from the subject site. 

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission.

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

Acoustic insulation will be required to be consistent with BCA at the Construction Certificate stage.

 

 

 

Proposal will be appropriately conditioned, if necessary.

 

 

 

There are no existing significant views enjoyed by adjoining properties in the area that will be affected by the proposed  development.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Design, orientation and landscaping will efficiently maximise solar access.

 

 

N.A.

 

 

 

Living areas of neighbouring properties will not have less than 3 hours sunlight per day.

 

Principal landscaped areas of neighbouring properties will not have less than 3 hours sunlight per day.

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·              Living areas are orientated to   the north.

·              Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S94 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

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

 

Note:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant’s Energy Assessment Report indicates that all dwellings will meet the equivalent of 3.5 star NatHERS ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

 

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

 

NA

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services

 

N/A

 

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

 

A condition will be applied requiring the provision of an outdoor clothes drying area.

 

 

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

 

 

NA

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

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

 

P3 High walls and structures to be avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

 

Design will allow adequate surveillance of front approaches as well as to the entry and the adjoining future aged care facility.

 

No high blank walls proposed. All walls have window/balcony openings.

Resident carparking will be in secure basement.

Visitor carparking will be suitably marked/signposted.

Lighting will be addressed as part of the construction certificate process in accordance with relevant standards.  

 

PARKING

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

 

 

Parking will be recessed within the building line in the basement and, therefore, will not dominate streetfront.

 

Carparking and general access for disabled people has been provided.

 

 

 

 

A bicycle parking area secured within the development site has been provided

 

 

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

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking provisions comply with DCP – Parking (see Section 10.2 below)

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

Visitor parking provision complies with DCP- Parking.

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Driveway has been designed in accordance with DCP – Multi-unit Housing

 

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

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

 

Vehicles will be able to enter and exit the subject site in a forward direction.

 

 

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

NA

 

 

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

 

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

 

N.A. as driveways are in basement carpark.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent with those used throughout the development.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

The driveway will be concrete slab compatible with other building materials for the proposal.

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

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

 

Internal carpark driveway will have adequate gradient of 1 in 6 for a distance of approximately 30m.

 

 

 

STORAGE

 

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Each dwelling unit will have adequate storage space internally

 

 

 

 

Storage spaces will be readily accessible from circulation areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.A.  

 

 

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

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

 

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

 

Access for people with disabilities will be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3  and so on.

 

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

 

 

The proposal will have lifts so that access for people with a disability and conversion of dwelling units to allow for access for persons with a disability will be possible.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Carparking for disabled will be provided near lift.

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

UTILITIES/SITE FACILITIES

 

 

P1 Mail Delivery

in accordance with Australia Post.

 

 

Adequate mail delivery will be available to ensure Australia Post deliveries.

 

 

P2Television/Radio Antennae and Satellite Dishes

Single common television/radio antenna and communication reception.

 

 

Adequate television and radio communication reception will be provided.

 

 

P3   Electricity

In accordance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

 

Electrical reticulation underground.

 

 

 

Electricity provision will be in accordance with requirements of Energy Australia.

 

 

Electrical reticulation within the site will be required to be underground.

 

 

P4 Gas

Meter for each dwelling and to optimum service points.

 

 

Gas meters for each dwelling will be provided to optimum service points.

 

 

P5 Water Supply 

In accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

 

Water supply will be in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

 

P6 Telephone

In accordance with the service provider.

 

 

Telephone will be in accordance with service provider.

 

 

P7 Laundry and Drying Facilities

·              An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

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

 

 

 

 

Internal laundry will be provided in each dwelling.

 

 

Communal clothes drying will be accessible and suitably screened from the street and surrounding public places.

 

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

 

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

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Waste collection and separation facilities will be required to comply with a Waste Management Plan.

 

 

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

 

 

Garbage and recycling facilities will be provided to meet the needs of the proposed dwellings and garbage recycling collection service

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design and is not obtrusive.

 

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

 

Garbage room will be located within the building envelope in the basement carpark.

 

 

 

9.3       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 is for stratum sub-division of the property to separate the STA carpark from the residential development.

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 General Policy for the Control of Siting and Erection of Residential Flat Buildings is no longer applicable and is superseded by the provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998. The proposal will not involve any sub-division of individual land allotments. 

 

N.A.

3.  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 site has no frontage to Dangar Street or Govett Lane. The proposal is for a multi-unit development with basement carparking fronting King Street.

Yes

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.  A 12m front building line to King Street will be provided.

 

 

SEPP 20 has been repealed. Side and rear setbacks will be consistent with adopted Master Plan.

Yes

 

 

 

N.A.

5.  Public open space should be provided in accordance with Section 94 plan.

5.  Proposal will be subject to Section 94 contributions for open space.

Yes

6.  Landscape plans should be provided at development application stage.

6.  A landscape plan 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/bicycle cross-site pathway will be provided through the subject site to linkup with a similar pathway required on the western boundary of the adjoining Montefiore site.

Yes

8.  A Traffic Management Plan must be prepared.

8.   A Traffic Report has been provided with the development application.

Yes

9.  Developer to provide road widening of 2m in Govett Lane.

9.  Council no longer requires the widening of Govett Lane.

N.A.

10.  A conservation plan must be prepared for the chimney.

 

 

Conservation work is to be undertaken prior to sale of the land by STA.

10.  A conservation plan has been prepared by Brian McDonald and Associates in 1994

 

A condition will be applied requiring that conservation works be undertaken and completed prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

Yes

 

 

 

N.A. (see Condition No. 7)

 

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 2C zoning in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

10.1.1.1 Floor Space

 

The proposal does not comply with Clause 32 of the Randwick LEP 1998, which allows a maximum FSR of 0.9:1 within zone 2C. The proposal will have a maximum FSR of 1.1:1.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1) for Council to consider a variation from the FSR standard. The stated objectives of the FSR control are to establish reasonable upper limits for developments in residential zones and to reduce the potential for adverse  impacts on nearby and adjoining developments. The applicant argues that strict compliance with the FSR control is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reason:

 

·    The ground level of the site is well below the King Street level. The building has been design such that the additional floor space will be distributed below street level and will not result in any noticeable visual bulk.

 

·    The additional floor area does not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts in the future properties within the development as well as the existing adjoining and surrounding developments.

 

The applicant’s justification for the variation in the FSR is considered acceptable as the proposal overall is considered to have a bulk and scale that will not be visually intrusive or dominant in the context of the subject site. In the Master Plan process, Council required the FSR of the development above King Street to be limited 0.9:1 if the use of ground level of the site below King Street was to be allowed in the design of the development. Calculations on the submitted floor plans confirm that the proposal will have an FSR of 0.9:1 for the portion of the development above King Street. The assessment in Section 10.7 below indicates that the proposal will have minimal, if no adverse amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding developments.

 

The reasons behind the SEPP 1 objection are considered well founded and should be supported.

 

10.1.1.2 Building Height

 

The proposed development does not comply with Clause 33(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998, which allows a maximum building height of 12m within zone 2C. The proposal will have a main building height of 15.5m which will extend to 16.7m inclusive of the roof over the lift well on Building 3.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1) for Council to consider a variation from the height standard. The stated objectives of the external wall height control are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in the zone given other development restrictions, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas. The applicant argues that strict compliance with the external wall height control is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reason:

 

§ The subject site has a ground level that is significantly below the King Street level so that the proposal has utilised this feature as part of the design of the development. In effect, the actual appearance of the height and scale of the development at street level is less than the actual height would imply.

 

§ The development allows for sunlight access to most apartments and areas of open space on-site. In addition the variation in building height does not give rise to adverse amenity impacts on existing adjoining and surrounding developments.

 

§ The existing heritage item on the site, the brick chimney, provides a strong vertical element on the site so that the additional height in Building 3 would complement the heritage item and would not appear to be out of character.

 

The justifications given for the departure from the building height control are considered reasonable and acceptable. In addition, given that there will be a 10m separation in the upper floors of Building 3, the breach in the height limit will be localised occurring only in the area of the two towers above Building 3. The assessment in Section 10.7 below indicates that the proposal will have minimal, if no adverse amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding developments. The SEPP 1 objection is, therefore, supported.

 

10.1.1.3 External Wall Height

 

The proposed development does not comply with Clause 33(4) of the Randwick LEP 1998, which allows a maximum external wall height of 10m within zone 2C. The proposal will have a maximum external wall height of 15.5m at Building 3.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1) for Council to consider a variation from the height standard. The stated objectives of the external wall height control are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in the zone given other development restrictions, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas. The applicant argues that strict compliance with the external wall height control is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reason:

 

§ The design of the buildings with their flat roofs will not be inconsistent with the height and scale of the large institutional buildings around the subject site namely the existing STA workshop building to the west, the existing University Press Building to the north, and the future Montefiore aged car housing to the east.

 

§ The development allows for sunlight access to most apartments and areas of open space on-site.

 

§ The increase in building height will not give rise to adverse amenity impacts on existing adjoining and surrounding developments.

 

§ The existing heritage item on the site, the brick chimney, provides a strong vertical element on the site so that the additional height in Building 3 would complement the heritage item and would not appear to be out of character.

 

As with the case for building height, the breach in the external wall height control will be localised occurring only in the tower component above Building 3. Furthermore, the proposal has been well articulated and modulated so that it will not have many areas of blank external walls that breach the external wall height control. The proposal overall will have minimal, if no, amenity impact on existing adjoining and surrounding developments nor will it detrimentally affect future residential properties within the proposed development. The reasons behind the SEPP 1 objection are considered well founded and should be supported.