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

 

21st February, 2003

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY, 10TH DECEMBER, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 17TH DECEMBER, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5          Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 01/2003 - 2002/03 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2002.

2

 

6.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 02/2003 - DECEMBER 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/05 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

5

 

6.3                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 03/2003 - BOWEN LIBRARY-TENANTS CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.

6

 

6.4                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 04/2003 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

13

 


 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 04/2003 - UNFORMED SECTION OF ELLEN STREET, RANDWICK.

15

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 05/2003 - CONCRETE AND HARD FILL CRUSHING TENDER.

18

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 06/2003 - HEFFRON PARK - PROPOSED HANDBALL COURTS.

22

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 07/2003 - TENDER 01/03. DES RENFORD 25M POOL UPGRADE.

25

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 03/2003 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE & ACTION.

32

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 06/2003 - 695 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

39

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 07/2003 - 11-13 FENTON AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

99

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 08/2003 - 35 DUDLEY STREET, COOGEE.

109

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 09/2003 - PROPOSED UPGRADE OF PATRICK PORT BOTANY CONTAINER TERMINAL, PORT BOTANY.

131

 

9.5                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 10/2003 - APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF SUNDAY TRADING FOR 195 - 199 MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA - (MAROUBRA JUNCTION HOTEL.)

150

 

9.6                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 11/2003 - RANDWICK LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1998: AMENDMENT NO. 32 - 15 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

153

 

9.7                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 12/2003 - 6 ARGYLE CRESCENT, KINGSFORD (DEFENCE SITE, RANDWICK.)

160

 

9.8                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 13/2003 - DESIGN REVIEW PANEL UNDER STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO.65.

199

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Matson – Need for Public Meeting over Claremont College Expansion.

204

11.2

By Councillor Andrews – Parking Spaces in Maroubra Junction.

204

11.3

By Councillor Andrews – Proposed Roundabout at Mons Ave & Malabar Road, Maroubra.

204

11.4

By Councillor Andrews – Proposed Parking Patrol Officer at Maroubra Junction.

204

11.5

By Councillor Andrews - Proposed Parking Patrol Officer at Maroubra Beach.

204

11.6

By Councillor Andrews – Use of rooms at Maroubra Beach Pavilion.

204

11.7

By Councillor White – Naming of the North Head of Little Bay.

205

11.8

By Councillor Procopiadis – Update on Litter Patrol by Council.

205

11.9

By Councillor Bastic – Advice on Council’s power to order repair and maintenance on a dilapidated property. 

205

11.10

By Councillor Matthews – Directional Sign for St Michael’s Golf Club.

205

11.11

By Councillor Matthews – Resurfacing of Boulevard at Malabar. 

205

11.12

By Councillor Matthews – Sale of Drainage Reserve in Waterton Avenue, Matraville. 

205

11.13

By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Speed Humps for Jersey Road, Matraville. 

205

11.14

By Councillor Matthews – Removal of Trees at Long Bay Jail. 

205

11.15

By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Roundabout for Forrest, Macquarie & Dampier Streets, Chifley. 

206

11.16

By Councillor Whitehead – Heritage Protection.

206

11.17

By Councillor Whitehead – Application of DCP 16, Kingsford Commercial Centre.

206

11.18

By Councillor Whitehead – Public Meeting to discuss 23 Judge Street, Randwick

206

11.19

By Councillor Whitehead –  By Councillor Whitehead – Access to site – 2-4 Frances Street, Randwick.

206

11.20

By Councillor Matson – Public Explanation Required for Excess Tree Removals in Bligh Place at the end of Fred Hollows Reserve.

206

11.21

By Councillor Matson – Need to Restrict Car Access to Dunningham Reserve.

207

11.22

By Councillor Matson – Need to Return to Former Proposals for Traffic Calming in the Dolphin, Judge and St Lukes Streets Area.

207

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 01/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2002/03 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2002

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4403

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2002/2003 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2002/2003.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

 

Park 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2002/2003 year, based on current trends.  The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

b).        DECEMBER 2002 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2002/2003 as at 31 December 2002:

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of December 2002 Quarter Budget Variations

By Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

Increase

(Increase )

 

 

( Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

$

$

$

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of Natural & Built Assets

508,388

(508,388)

0

 

 

 

 

Waste Services

357,820

(360,105)

(2,285)

 

 

 

 

City Services

48,593

314

48,907

 

 

 

 

City Planning & Development

92,094

(90,575)

1,519

 

 

 

 

Corporate Governance

251,259

(299,400)

(48,141)

 

 

 

 

Executive Strategy

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

1,258,154

(1,258,154)

0

Original Budget (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

0

Net (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

0

 

 

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations, and reserve funds balances as at 31 December 2002 are shown on the attachment to this report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer, advises that  the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the report in relation to the December 2002 budget review be received and noted.

 

2.         That the budget variations referred in paragraph (b) in this report be adopted.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

December Budget Review 2002/03 Financial Year - under separate cover.

 

 

 

                               

 

………………………………

 

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 02/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DECEMBER 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/05 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2002/05 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the December Quarter Review of the 2002/05 Plan.

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the December Quarter Review – 2002/05 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

DECEMBER 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002-05 MANAGEMENT PLAN - under separate cover

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 03/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY-Tenants Claims for Compensation

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

P/001537

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER            

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On the 10 December 2002 Council considered a confidential report in relation to compensation for tenants at Bowen Library. (General Manager’s Report 24/2002). Council resolved that the applicant be paid the sum detailed in the report and that a further report be submitted on the history of the matter. This report has been prepared as a result of that resolution.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

1. Damage to Bowen Library

In February 2001, a problem developed at Bowen Library, where large portions of render began to fall off the building. The Director Assets & Infrastructure Report 36/2002 (attached) outlines the problem and the steps taken by Council officers

 

 

2. Public Safety and Temporary Action

The temporary fencing was placed around parts of the building to ensure public safety, while structural engineers were investigating the integrity of the building’s façade. This investigation by Meinhardts revealed that the combination of not enough masonry expansion joints with the designed deflections of the building was causing the render to fall.

 

In August 2001 consultants were engaged to investigate and consider options to design, specify and call quotations, gain building approvals, and engage and supervise construction of the hoarding. The builder commenced work on the 5 November 2001 and it was completed on the 20 December 2001 with the fencing being removed on the 21 December 2001.

 

A simple repair of the existing façade was not possible as the render needed to be completely removed.

 

 

 

3. Impact on Tenants

As a result of the erection of the fence the business tenants at the Bowen Library Building experienced a negative impact on their trading. This was acknowledged by Council and Council resolved at the Works Committee Meeting on 14 May 2002 to give favourable consideration to the claims for damages made by the affected tenants. See attached report.

 

Council requested a report from a Certified valuer on the impact of the fence. The report concluded that the “fencing (although not considered a major problem) does distract visually from the premises and could cause some “walk-in” customers to miss the shops”

 

 

4. Consideration of Compensation Claims by tenants

 

Council’s tenants at Bowen Library under the Retail Leases Act 1994 (Section 34) were entitled to reasonable compensation. The relevant sections of this Act state:

(1)  A retail shop lease is taken to provide that if the lessor:

(a)…..

 

(b) takes any action that would inhibit or alter, to a substantial extent, the flow of customers to the shop, or

 

(c)  unreasonably takes any action that causes significant disruption of, or has a significant adverse effect on, trading of the lessee in the shop, or

 

(d) fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent or put a stop to anything that causes significant disruption of, or which has significant adverse effect on, trading of the lessee in the shop and that is attributable to causes within the lessor’s control and the lessor does not rectify the matter as soon as practicable after being requested in writing by the lessee to do so, the lessor is liable to pay the lessee reasonable compensation for any loss or damage (other than nominal damage) suffered by the lessee as a consequence.

 

The tenants were asked to provide Council with documentation in support of their claim including profit and loss statements for specific periods. The compensation claim for one tenant has been finalised and another is under consideration at present.

 

 

5. Consideration of Compensation Claims against original structural consultants and builders.

These options were considered. However a key factor impacting on the decision not to proceed related to the expiration of the limitation period for the commencement of proceedings against the original builder. At the time of consideration the works had been completed over 10 years ago.

 

6. Remedial Work

The repair of the façade will occur with the construction of the HACC facility on top of the Bowen Library building. The old façade will be completely removed and a new façade installed in accordance with Council’s Maroubra Junction CBD Streetscape Master Plan.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is acknowledged that the project to replace the hoarding in 2001 took considerable time but it is hoped that a better solution will be achieved for both Council and its tenants.

 

With the imminent construction of the HACC facility Council will endeavour to keep the tenants informed and manage the process so that any disruption to the business of the tenants is minimised.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That General Managers Report 03/2003 be noted

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Director Assets & Infrastructure Services' Report 52/2002

2. Director Assets & Infrastructure Services report 36/2002

3. Resolution from Works Committee Meeting on Tuesday, 14th May, 2002.

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 52/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

 

DATE:

2 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4415  xr  98/S/0178

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 April, 2002, considered the attached Director’s Report No. 36/2002 and resolved that -

 

“this matter be deferred to the next Works Committee to allow the tenants to address Council on the problems being experienced with the Bowen Library building”

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the Council’s resolution the tenants have been contacted and invited to address Council regarding the problems they are experiencing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As stated in my previous report the new hoarding was completed in December of last year and whilst it is acknowledged that the project took some time to complete a better solution will ultimately be achieved for Council and its tenants.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services Report No 52/2002 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director's Report No. 36/2002

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 36/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

 

 

DATE:

17 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4415   98/S/0178

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of the 26th of February, 2002 resolved that -

 

“a report be prepared on the situation of the Bowen Library Awning”

 

ISSUES:

 

In February 2001, Council officers were made aware of a problem with the Bowen Library building. Large portions of render were falling off the building. An inspection of the building by Council’s Engineers indicated that small areas of render had delaminated from the building, however larger areas of render were cracked and displacement of some brick panels was noticed.

 

To provide immediate protection from the public temporary fencing was placed around the effected area.

 

Council officers engaged the architectural firm for the Bowen Library HACC facility to investigate the extent of the problem and to incorporate a solution into the overall Bowen Library redesign.

 

The Structural Engineering Report on the facade indicates a structural problem with  increased deflections of the floor slabs resulting in the delamination of the external render.

 

Council officers and the architects had great difficulty in designing a proper protection system that complied with Work Cover requirements. It was considered that a full construction type awning whilst complying with Work Cover requirements would pose an unacceptable burden on the Bowen Library tenants. It was considered that a better solution would be to incorporate the hoarding into the final building design.

 

While this approach prolonged the initial inconvenience to the tenants the median term benefit is that inconvenience due to the erection of hoardings in front of the shops associated with the repair and future renovations of the Library building will be minimised.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The new hoarding was completed in December of last year and whilst it is acknowledged that the project took some time to complete a better solution will ultimately be achieved for Council and its tenants.

 

Council currently has claims for damages from each of the tenants, which are being assessed by Councils legal Counsel. Further investigations are continuing into what action if any Council may be able to take to recover its losses in relation to this matter.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 36/2002 be noted

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

TUESDAY 14TH MAY, 2002

 

 

5.7       DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 52/2002 - BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING.  (98/S/4415 xr 98/S/0178)

 

W35    RESOLUTION:  (Bastic/His Worship the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan ) that Council give favourable consideration to the request for damages by the affected tenants in the Bowen Library Building.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 04/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

DATE:

20 February, 2003

FILE NO:

P/003810, P/011668, P/003994, P/014776, P/001008, P/001994, 98/S/2265

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Joseph Ajaka (T/As Tradewinds Café/Brasserie) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 200 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

2.         Katherine Kirchner (T/As Centennial Bite) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 26 Clovelly Road, Randwick.

3.         Vicki Daley (T/As Crust Deli Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 46 Frenchmans Road, Randwick.

4.         Somyot Phattha Aphinan (T/As Thai Happy Buddha Restaurant) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 170 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

5.         Anthony Burrows (T/As The Coogee Bite Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 126A Beach Street, Coogee.

6.         Mrs E Mastoris (T/As Coogee Yerros Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 204 Arden Street, Coogee.

7.         Coogee Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for the signing of the lease agreement for Part of Reserve No. 82505 known as Grant Reserve, more particularly described as comprising the Boat Store.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.   Joseph Ajaka (T/As Tradewinds Café/Brasserie) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 200 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

2.   Katherine Kirchner (T/As Centennial Bite) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 26 Clovelly Road, Randwick.

3.   Vicki Daley (T/As Crust Deli Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 46 Frenchmans Road, Randwick.

4.   Somyot Phattha Aphinan (T/As Thai Happy Buddha Restaurant) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 170 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

5.   Anthony Burrows (T/As The Coogee Bite Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 126A Beach Street, Coogee.

6.   Mrs E Mastoris (T/As Coogee Yerros Café) for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 204 Arden Street, Coogee.

7.   Coogee Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for the signing of the lease agreement for Part of Reserve No. 82505 known as Grant Reserve, more particularly described as comprising the Boat Store.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 04/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

UNFORMED SECTION OF ELLEN STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0269/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In a letter dated 3 December 2002, Mr Murray Slender of 25 Ellen Street, Randwick, detailed two issues regarding Bangor Park and the adjacent unformed section of Ellen Street.

 

Mr Slender highlighted the ongoing poor condition of access to a number of garages fronting the unformed section of Ellen Street, and the extent of soil erosion in Bangor Park.

 

ISSUES:

 

An unformed section of public road known as Ellen Street, 20.11 metres wide, exists adjacent the western edge of Bangor Park between Oberon Street and Rainbow Street Randwick. Five properties have frontages to this section being No’s 25, 27, 29, 31, and 33 Ellen Street. Properties at No’s 29 and 31 have additional frontage to Creer Street at the rear, while properties at No’s 25, 27 and 23 are benefited by a Right of way to Creer Street. The Right of Way benefiting No’s 25 and 27 appears to be unformed.

 

For a number of years, vehicles accessing the properties at No’s 25, 27, and 31, have traversed the unformed section of Ellen Street and substantial sections of Bangor Park from either Rainbow Street or Oberon Street. Following an investigation of property application history, it appears that the majority of houses fronting to and accessing from the unformed section of Ellen Street, have approval for garages facing that frontage, regardless of the frontage or Rights of Way to Creer Street that benefit these three properties.

 

Vehicular traffic accessing the above properties, has caused worn paths on the unformed section of Ellen Street and substantial sections of Bangor Park, which, exacerbated by periods of wet weather, have resulted in large areas subject to progressive erosion.

 

These areas of erosion detract from the general condition and amenity of the park and constitute a poor and potentially unstable surface for vehicles accessing the properties at No’s 25, 27, and 31 and pedestrians utilising the park and the unformed section of Ellen Street.

 

It is considered that the provision of suitable vehicle access to the properties at No’s 25, 27, and 31, combined with restoration works to the eroded areas of the Bangor Park, would address the problems outlined above.

 

One method of providing access to the properties, involves utilising access from Creer Street to the rear of the properties. This would require the construction of an access way along the Right of Way to No’s 25 and 27, and excavation works to match the Creer Street alignment at No. 31. Given the costs associated with this work, it is anticipated that the relative property owners would not favourably consider this method.

 

Another method involves the formation and construction of carriageway, footway, and kerb and gutter within the existing 20.11 metre wide public road reserve.  

 

This method is preferred for the following reasons:

 

·    It provides a long term solution to the long standing problem of a suitable vehicle access to the properties fronting the unformed section of Ellen Street;

·    It reflects the existing classification as public road;

·    It would provide a delineation to the park boundary which has a potential conflict of accessing vehicles and park users;

·    It provides a formal street frontage for properties fronting the currently unformed section of Ellen Street, which facilitates activities such as construction work and deliveries and provides for visitors to the properties. Vehicles associated with these activities currently traverse Bangor Park to access properties. Recent construction work associated with one of the properties, has resulted in damage to, and construction materials and activities being undertaken in, the public road reserve.

 

Providing a formation less than the full width and length of the road reserve, is not preferred as it would not provide a long term delineation of the road/park boundary and would essentially act as a de factor private road over public road reserve with little benefit for remainder of community.

 

It is anticipated that the formation and construction of carriageway, footway, and kerb and gutter, would provide a parking lane on the western side and a traffic lane in each direction.

 

The estimated cost for the provision of carriageway, footway and kerb and gutter, is approximately $240,000.

 

Until such time as funds are secured in the budget for the above works, the problems of reduced condition and amenity to the park and lack of a suitable vehicle access for properties fronting the unformed section of Ellen Street remain.

 

It is proposed that provisional works be undertaken to provide access for vehicles to properties, and reduce their impact on the park. These works would include constructing a stabilised access from Rainbow Street, to the design levels of the proposed road, and the provision of a delineation fence between the unformed section of Ellen Street, and Bangor Park.  

 

The estimated cost of provisional works is $30,000

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Vehicular traffic accessing properties fronting the unformed section of Ellen Street between Rainbow Street and Oberon Street Coogee, has caused worn paths on the to the unformed road reserve and substantial sections of Bangor Park, which, exacerbated by periods of wet weather, have resulted in large areas subject to progressive erosion.

 

These areas of erosion detract from the general condition and amenity of the park and constitute a poor and potentially unstable surface for vehicles accessing the properties at No’s 25, 27, and 31 and pedestrians utilising the park and the unformed section of Ellen Street.

 

The estimated cost for the provision of carriageway, footway and kerb and gutter, in the unformed road reserve, to address these problems, is approximately $240,000.

 

The estimated cost of provisional works providing a stabilised access from Rainbow Street, and delineation of the road/park boundary is $30,000.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 That:

 

1.   A design be prepared for the full width construction of the unformed section of Ellen Street, Coogee.

 

2.   An allocation $240,000 for the construction of carriageway, footway and kerb and gutter in the unformed section of Ellen Street, Coogee, included in the Draft 2004/2005 Budget for Council’s consideration.

 

3.   An allocation $30,000 for the construction of provisional works associated with the unformed section of Ellen Street and Bangor Park, Coogee, be included in the Draft 2003/2004 Budget for Council’s consideration.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 05/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

CONCRETE AND HARD FILL CRUSHING TENDER

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

003/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

In accordance with the General Manager’s permission, tenders were called for the appointment of a preferred provider to undertake the processing into recycled products of concrete and hard fill waste.  This waste is currently stockpiled at the Yarra Bay Recycling Centre and the recycled products would be available for use by the Council or general sale.

Product included in the Tender scope were:  

·    20mm minus crushed concrete

·    10-20mm crushed concrete aggregate

·    4-10mm crushed concrete aggregate

·    4mm minus crushed concrete dust

·    20mm minus crushed asphalt

·    10-20mm crushed tile aggregate

 

The proposed period of the preferred provider agreement is two-years with an option for a further one-year.

 

The closing date was Tuesday 07 January 2003 and a total of 4 Tenders were received.  Also contained in the Tender Box was a letter from S & B Pty Ltd expressing interest in carrying out the work however this was deemed not to have complied with the conditions of tendering and was not considered in the process. A further tender from Metropolitan Demolitions was located in the Tender Box the following day and again this Tender was not considered in this process as the Tender closure time had expired. The four Tenders for consideration were:

 

1.          Portaplant Pty Ltd

2.          Screenmasters Pty Ltd

3.          Statewide Crushing Services Pty Ltd

4.          Ray Davis Engineering Pty Ltd

 

ISSUES:

 

Background

 

The Recycle Centre at Yarra Bay has been stockpiling unprocessed hard fill products for approximately 12 months. During this period of time the level of unprocessed product stored at Yarra Bay has reached sufficient quantities of each product to require a further crushing campaign to be undertaken.  Previously we have obtained ad hoc quotations for the processing of products, but this process has not delivered the best value for money to the Council due to the over use of resources in the continuous process of quoting, evaluating and administering separate agreements.

 

Tender Assessment

 

The Tender Specification Part B Conditions of Tendering advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 Local Government Act 1993. Tenderers were also given an indication of the selection criteria (as detailed below) to be referred to in the evaluation.

 

a.         The Rate

b.         Quality Management

c.         Occupational Health Safety

d.         Experience

e.         Capacity to undertake the works

f.          Production capacity

g.         Environmental controls

 

The criteria were not listed in any order. No indication was given to the Tenderers that any criteria would be accorded more weight than another in the selection process.

 

Evaluation Team

 

A detailed evaluation of the Tender submissions was conducted by a panel consisting of

Acting Restorations Officer, Team Leader Recycling, Manager Contracts and Purchasing and the Commercial Assistant.

 

Evaluation Process

 

The evaluation followed the process detailed below:

 

1.   The evaluation team undertook an objective quantitative assessment of the completed schedules, not including pricing information, submitted as part of each Tender. Included in Schedule B22 were a number of specific questions to be answered by the Tenderers.

2.   The schedule information and the specific questions were listed under the relevant criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation. Team members scored the criteria individually with reference to the scoring guidelines, as structured on the scoring sheet. Individual scores were then averaged into a final team score and recorded on the Evaluation Final sheet

3.   The Tenderers service rates (provided in Schedule B4), for processing of each type of product were evaluated separately to the other schedules.  Each of the product types were weighted in accordance with the teams’ estimate of the demand for processing and scored by direct relationship with rates provided by the other tenderers’.  The scores for each product were then totaled for each tenderer and ranked as a number between 0 and 100, where 100 indicated the highest rates and 0 the lowest. 

4.   The scores for the service rates and the final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “value for money analysis” sheet for final evaluation. 

5.   The results of this assessment are attached.

 

CONCLUSION:

Summary of Tenders

Portaplant Pty Ltd.

Portaplant Aust Pty Ltd has vast experience in processing of recycled products as called for in the Tender document. The reference checks combined with other anecdotal evidence supports their statements regarding ability to carry out the work detailed. The score assessment against the criteria listed on the scoring sheet 88% and their service rates were evaluated to be the lowest with a score of 47.

Screenmasters Pty Ltd

Screenmasters is a company that also has a long history of processing recycled products as called for in the Tender document and the Council has used this organisation on previous occasions.  The assessment against the criteria revealed that Screenmasters were able to provide supporting evidence to their submission, which ultimately enabled them to achieve the highest evaluation score of 93%.  This tenderers score for the service rates of 71 confirmed that they had offered the highest service rates of all the tenderers.

Statewide Crushing Pty Ltd

Statewide Crushing has recently moved into the process of crushing recycled products. The references provided supported the claims that they are capable of producing the product required.  The score of 84% confirmed Statewide’s capability to undertake the work and the service rates ranking of 61 was the 3rd lowest.

Ray Davis Earthmoving Pty Ltd 

Davis Earthmoving has a long established business in processing these products and has made an offer that is compliant with the specifications required in the Tender document.  They received a capable evaluation score of 81% and offered the second lowest service rates as evaluated by the team with a score of 49.  Except for one negative comment relating to customer/contractor relationships reference checks were positive. 

Summary


It is clear that all Tenders assessed were professionally presented and reflect the effort carried out by the Companies involved.  The deciding factor of determining the best result for the Council involved a detailed analysis of the cost of processing the products required.  Each Tender detailed the costs listed against each product that revealed some significant differences between each Company.

 

Given that the product listed under tiles will be a one off process of approximately 2000 tonnes the price variation for this product was not considered significant.  Two products will form the basis of the majority of product processed. 20mm minus crushed concrete and 20mm minus crushed asphalt will form approximately 80% of the tonnage of the products to be processed.  A significant saving will be achieved in accepting the Tender with the lowest cost given that the other criteria measured meets our expectations.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.   That Council accept the tenderer submitted by Portaplant Pty Ltd for Concrete and Hardfill Crushing;

2.   The unsuccessful tenders be notified of the tender result; and

3.   The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign the necessary contract and other documents pertaining to the scope of works and that Council Seal be      affixed as required.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Tender Evaluation - under separate cover

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

GEOFF REYNOLDS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TEAM LEADER - RECYCLING

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 06/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

HEFFRON PARK - PROPOSED HANDBALL COURTS

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1154

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In August 2002 Council received a letter from the President, New South Wales Handball Association, requesting that approval be given to the construction of handball courts in Heffron Park adjacent to the existing tennis courts.

 

ISSUES:

 

The details contained in the Association’s letter are as follows:

 

I draw your attention to a meeting with members of our Planning Committee and yourself at Heffron Park last month.

 

From our previous meeting it is obvious that further discussion is needed regarding operational procedures.  However, at this point in time, we have put together some architectural plans for the area in order to provide Council with an outline of our requirements.

 

As a long standing community based body, the NSW Handball Association is seeking Randwick City Council’s approval to enter into a leasing arrangement to build handball courts back in the Eastern Suburbs.  As was the case in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s, we foresee large benefits for the youth of our community in having handball courts rebuilt in the area.

 

NSW has produced many national champions since 1924 and nearly all are from the Randwick City Council area.  Marcellin, Pagewood, Randwick Boys High and South Sydney schools have in the past written to us requesting us to reinstate school training programs that have fallen away of late.  The last Australian Handball Championships played in the Eastern Suburbs was 1989 held in the Marcellin College grounds.

 

The Association will pay for the cost of the courts and the maintenance of the complex and seek further clarification from Council regarding leases etc.

 

The proposed parcel of land, as discussed, is on the north eastern end of the tennis court area.  It is approximately 45 metres x 35 metres (or 1580 square metres).  The area required is not large.

 

We look forward to having a meeting with Council as soon as possible in order to give a more detailed survey of the area.”

 

At the time of the initial approach, the area requested was within the area licensed by the Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association.  This license was due for review at the end of 2002.  This review has been completed and it has been decided that the area proposed to be licensed will now closely follow the fence boundaries, allowing previously unused areas to be released for other purposes.

 

The proposed tennis court license and the area requested by the Handball Association are shown on the attached sketch plan.

 

The Heffron Park Draft Plan of Management does not specifically provide for the construction of handball courts nor does it preclude them. The draft POM does provide guidelines for developments of this nature which would allow approval of the facility as requested.

 

The proposal has been discussed with officers of the Department of Land and Water Conservation who advise that they would need to see a detailed development application prior to making any formal assessment.  Notwithstanding this comment no immediate objection was raised to the proposal.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposal submitted by the NSW Handball Association has merit and is in keeping with the guidelines set by Council for development within Heffron Park.  It is considered that Council should support the application subject to compliance with Council’s requirements and any requirements of the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council support the application by the NSW Handball Association to enter into a licensing agreement to provide handball courts at Heffron Park subject to compliance with Council’s requirements and any requirements of the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Site Map

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 07/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 01/03. DES RENFORD 25M POOL UPGRADE

 

 

DATE:

20 February, 2003

FILE NO:

PROJ/0085/04/PART 1

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Following the General Manager’s approval to call Tenders on the 24 December 2002, tender advertisements were placed for three weeks in the Sydney Morning Herald with Tenders being closed on the 11 February 2003. Prior to the tender closure on the 11 February 2003, five companies indicated their intention to tender –however, only three (3) tenders were received.

 

ISSUES:

 

General

In May 1999, Patterson & Britton Partners Pty Ltd (P&B), on request of Council, prepared an “Engineering Audit” Report for the 25m Pool Indoor Training Pool at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre. The Report addressed a number of the areas, which require maintenance attention. In early November 2002, documentation and drawings were prepared to perform maintenance upgrade to the existing 25m Indoor training Pool as per the P&B Report requirements.

 

Consultant

Quotations were called for Consultancy Services from many Architectural and pool specialists; over forty (40) companies were asked to quote with only five (5) responses. The consultancy brief covered:

Design, Documentation and Drawings for treatment of:

 

1.Steel Roof Trusses & Columns (address existing corrosion) & paint

2.Surface concrete in and surrounding pool & paint (including lane marking)

3. Timber surfaces painting (roof purlins & window frames)

4.Remove all existing tiling and replace with new tiles in and surrounding pool & in overflow channel (some "mosaic" tiles damaged)

5.Air-conditioning duct (stainless steel) cleaning

6. Roof ventilators (electrify)

7.Doors (paint)

8.Replace timber seats with new timbers

9.Extend pool external wall to “cover” existing protruding pipes

10.Steel access covers (bolt down)

11.Tile or Paint Concrete Floor surrounding swimming pool

 

Tenders

Tenders were claled on 7 Janaury, 2003, for a 3 to 4 week period. Three tenders were submitted requiring works to commence on 10 March, 2003, with the contract period being 4/5 weeks.

 

JUSTIFICATION:

 

Council have a requirement to address the issues raised by the May 1999 consultant’s report (regarding structural issues –Patterson & Britton), Des Renford Manager and Occupational Health & Safety matters –for example, existing:

 

Ø  Diving platforms (no diving permitted)

Ø  Incorrect spacing on pool steps

Ø  “Sharp” corners

Ø  Pipes that “protrude” from the external pool wall

Ø  Trip hazards in the concrete floor

Ø  Seats that allow “gaps” for smaller children to “fall through”

Ø  Southern ramp has a “drop” (no northern ramp exists –hence a “drop” exists

Ø  Rusty lamp supports

 

Also, there is a perception by the Public that the water quality is “inferior” due to the pool paint being removed on the internal pool lining.

 

TENDER ASSESSMENT
 
General

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

(a)        Price;

(b)        Period of time to complete the Work;

(c)        Financial Capacity to carry out the Work;

(d)        Experience and ability to complete Work;

(e)        Compliance with the Specification;

(f)         Quality management system of the tenderer’; and

(g)        Occupational Health and Safety.

The criteria were not listed in any particular order and it was emphasised that they would not be accorded equal weight in the assessment process.

Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian O’Leary, Michael Hill (Des Renford Centre Manager) and Project Manager, Brian Jacobs.

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was:

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

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

3.         The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet and related to the tenderers‘ Fixed Lump Sum Tendered Price adjusted as may have been required for conformance with the tender specification. 

4.         After the initial evaluation of the tenders received, the Team agreed that the Tender from ProjectCorp Pty Ltd represented the best “value for money”.

5.         The results of this assessment are attached.

The final evaluation criteria which include the criteria in D1 above and a breakdown of their corresponding percentage weightings are set out below:

Criteria

Weighting

Compliance with Specification

10%

Programme

20%

Environmental, OH&S and Quality

20%

Technical

25%

Rates

20%

References

5%

TOTAL

100%

 

 

SUMMARY OF TENDERS:

 

Evaluation Summary

 

ITEM

COMPANY

AMOUNT $ (ex. GST)-refer Tender Evaluation

EVALUATION SCORE (%)

COMMENT

Actual

Conformance/ Adjustment

1

ProjectCorp Pty Ltd

145,581.0

180,840.00

90%

Refer Fax’s dated 17 & 18 February 2003 from ProjectCorp P/L

2

Sydney Building Services (SBS)

300,380.0

300,380.00

   88%

 

3

BMP Group

347,250.0

364,250.0

75%

Additional $15,000 for concourse “topping” slab

GENERAL

Options

Council had allowed the Tenderers under, Tender 01/03, several options for surface treatment of the Pool:

(a) Pool Surface

I.          Epoxy Paint -Specification D4.0 or

II.         Tiling  -Specification D3.0

(b) Concourse/ flooring:

III.          Option A –Tiling  (Specification E4.0) - or

IV.          Option B –Waterproof membrane ( Specification E5.0 -) 

(c) Seating

V.           Options 1 –replace existing timber seating to same layout

VI.           Option 2   –replace existing seating timber to modified layout

In assessing the Tenders, Council has chosen Items (ii), (iii) and (vi) above as our preference for the Pool upgrade project.

ProjectCorp Pty Ltd

The submission received from ProjectCorp was the lowest price offer.  Their original submission lump sum price of $145,581 had been incorrectly calculated due to an ambiguity in one of our tender schedules and was later adjusted for conformance by the addition of $42,759 after clarification and justification was requested and received.  Their final fixed lump sum price of $180,840 (includes provision of an alternative drain system which will incur a saving of $8,000) was significantly less than the next lowest price of $300,380 received from Sydney Building Services.

The assessment against the criteria revealed that ProjectCorp achieved the highest evaluation score of 90%. 

Sydney Building Services (SBS)

A “high” cost of $300,380 (ex. GST) means SBS was not selected on this cost aspect alone.

 

Although SBS had the second highest Evaluation score of 88%, their Tender price of $300,380 was unacceptable.

BMP Group

BMP failed to provide all their Tender Schedules & scored the lowest Evaluation score of 75%.

However, BMP Group had the highest tender price of $347,250.00 and consequently did not meet Council’s cost criteria.

OPTIONS:

Three Options were considered:

1. “Do nothing”

2.Significantly reduce Scope of Works

3. Proceed with Tender (ex. “minor” items)

 

 “Do nothing”

 

·          High risk option –Many OH&S issues and structural matters outstanding

·          Mayor’s advise to the Community to upgrade the 25m Pool would be negated

                                                Total cost:                          $12,000.00 (refer Note 1 below)

 

Significantly reduce Scope of Works

·           Delete tiling of concourse, ventilation fans, grate (drainage), seating

Project Out-turn cost:    $152,000.00

 

 

 

Proceed with current Tender

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT ($) ex. GST

ESTIMATE ($)

1

Contractor Price (ProjectCorp Pty Ltd)

 

Original Tender price=                       $145,581.00

Adjusted for conformance=               $ 43,259.00

 

Adjust Scope

Ø Replace stainless steel

      grated drain with

      alternative                                  ($8,000.00)

 

Adjusted conforming Tender Price=$180,840.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$180,840.00                            

 

2

Variations (say approx. 10% of contract sum)

 

18,084

3

Concrete Pool wall rectification –allow 25%”outide” and 4% inside

 

10,000

4

ACOR & AJ&C

 

 

 

·    Daily Site Visit & Review Shop Drawings & Request For Information / Design Change Requests. Review “As built drwgs”

 

 

Approx.

$4,000

6

Resources

 

 

·    Safety Audits (4hrs/week)

 

 

2,000

 

FUNDS (approx.) REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PROJECT–TOTAL=$214,924 say $215,000

Note 1: Expenditure as at 19 February 2003 (consultants):

a.   ACOR

b.   AJ&C

c.   GNF

Advertising in SMH

 

Total expenditure to19 February 2003

Funds from Des Renford Maintenance budget (Job No. 4-4-341-500)

 

 

 

Approx. $4,000

Approx. $5,000

Approx. $2,000

 

              $800

 

Approx.  $12,000

 

 

 

 

 

FUNDING:

Funding Sources (based on Project Out-turn cost of $$215,000 -ex. GST)

 

ITEM

FUNDS AVAILABLE

JOB NO.

AMOUNT (EX. GST)

$

1

Des Renford Pool –Maintenance Fund

4-4-341-500

  151,000

2

Capital Fund

8-2-059-100

    64,000

 

TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE                                                                  $215,000

 

CONCLUSION:

1.         The Evaluation Team considered all the three (3) tenders; it was agreed that the tender received from ProjectCorp Pty Ltd for a conforming adjusted Tender amount of $180,840.00, was the preferred Tender.

2.         Project Out-turn cost is $215,000.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         Council accepts the Tender of ProjectCorp Pty Ltd for the (adjusted) Tender price of $180,840.00 (ex. GST).

 

2.         Funds from the following sources be allocated to the Project:

 

3.         The unsuccessful tenders be notified of the tender result; and

 

4.         The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign the necessary contract and other documents pertaining to the scope of works and that Council Seal be affixed as required.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Appendix - UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRIAN JACOBS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICER


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 03/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE & ACTION

 

 

DATE:

4 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1733 xr 98/S/0911

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council Meeting held on 22nd October, 2002 it was resolved:

 

“That Randwick Council adopt the following interim policy and a report be submitted back to Council on this interim policy in compliance with the requirements of Policy No. 1.01.01:

 

(a)        That the General Manager is to acknowledge receipt of all correspondence within 14 days; and

 

(b)        That Council endeavour to finalise the issue to which the correspondence pertains within 21 days.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council adopted Policy No. 1.01.01 (Copy attached) in 1986 and it is specifically designed to ensure that any new policy proposal is given proper consideration and is clearly expressed. It also acts as a safeguard to ensure that legal and other implications of any new policy proposal are taken into account. In essence, the procedure associated with this policy provides that any policy decision by Council in the first instance is referred to Manex for review. Part of the role of Manex in this review is to ensure that the new policy proposal does not conflict with any existing policy or, if it does, that the necessary amendments or rationalisations of those existing policies are also recommended.

 

The interim policy proposal, adopted at the Council Meeting on 22nd October, 2002, was submitted to the Manex Meeting on 4th December, 2002. At that Meeting, I reported that in September, 1996 Council adopted a Policy (No. 3.01.10 – copy attached) entitled “Acknowledgement of Incoming Correspondence”. This policy provides that if action on a matter will not be finalised within a three (3) week period from the receipt of the correspondence, then Council is to acknowledge the letter detailing which Department is handling the matter and the anticipated time for completion.

 

The thrust of this Policy is to attempt to save Council the cost of postage for acknowledgement letters in cases where matters will be finalised within the three week period and, if this is not to be the case, to keep correspondents up to date with progress on their requests.

 

On average, Council receives approximately 1,000 letters, 150 faxes and 250 E-mails per week. There would be a significant cost for Council in formally acknowledging all this incoming correspondence with postage, stationery and staff costs to be considered. Based only on acknowledging the incoming correspondence of approximately 1,000 letters per week at 50 cents postage and stationery at 5 cents per item the cost would equate to $28,600 annually. Staff costs for undertaking the acknowledgement function would also be significant and could equate to close to an additional full time staff member at $35,000 per annum including overheads. No funds have been provided in the current budget for this purpose.

 

At the present time the function of acknowledging the correspondence, when work will not be completed within the three week period, is spread throughout the various Departments of Council. In many cases, there is no need for acknowledgements to be sent, as the requests have been complied with within the mandatory time. In these cases the proposal would generate a cost which currently does not exist. It would also be necessary for the acknowledgement process to be centralised in the Records Section and acted upon at time of receipt of the correspondence and hence the need for an additional staff member.

 

An effort is already made to finalise issues raised in correspondence  within the 21 day period (or less in fact depending on the type of request) and Council’s existing “Acknowledgement Policy” provides for communication with correspondents at that three week juncture if the request is of a more complex nature or needs to be scheduled into a Works Programme.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Council already has an adopted “Acknowledgement of Incoming Correspondence” Policy (No. 3.01.10) which is in similar terms to the Council’s resolution of 22nd October, 2002 it is considered that Council’s current policy should stand.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the contents of the Director Governance, Management & Information Services Report No. 04/2003 be received and noted; and

 

(b)        That, in view of the existence of Policy No. 3.01.10, no further action be taken in relation to Council’s resolution of 22nd October, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Policy No. 1.01.01 - Procedure for Making New Policies

Policy No. 3.01.10 - Acknowledgement of Incoming Correspondence Policy  

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

                                                 RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

                                                          POLICY REGISTER

 

 

 

                      PART 1 - COUNCIL MATTERS, MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

Review Date:   /   /19                                                                                        Policy No:  1.01.01

 

 

POLICY TITLE:                      PROCEDURE FOR MAKING NEW POLICIES.

 

 

File No.                                                98/S/0911

 

 

                                                                 OBJECTIVE

 

1.         To ensure that any new policy proposal is given proper consideration and is clearly expressed.

 

2.         To ensure that legal and other implications of any new policy proposal are taken into account.

 

 

                                                        POLICY STATEMENT

 

1.         In this policy, "policy decisions" shall mean resolutions of the Council which are in the nature of guidelines or rules or precedents for future action by the Council or Council staff or by the public in its dealings with the Council. "Policy decisions" are therefore intended to promote consistency of approach and administrative efficiency.

 

2.         Any new policy or any amendment of an existing policy that is proposed by Council staff (and is recommended in an agenda) will be put forward in the standard format for policies. In such cases, the Department Head concerned shall be responsible for ensuring that the proposed new policy:

 

(a)        is concisely and clearly worded,

 

(b)        does not conflict with any existing policy or, if it does, that the necessary amendments or rationalisation of those existing policies is also recommended,

 

(c)    is legally within power and that any financial or administrative implications have been properly considered, and

(d)        has been approved by the Corporate Management Team.

 

3.         Should the Council pass a resolution in the nature of a policy decision, otherwise than as a consequence of the procedure described in paragraph 2, the resolution shall be regarded as an interim policy decision, and shall be referred to the General Manager for a report to the next appropriate meeting. In preparing that report, the General Manager shall ensure that:

 

(a)        the policy decision is presented to the Council in the standard format for policies,

 

(b)        the new policy is concisely and clearly worded,

 

(c)        the new policy does not conflict with any existing policy or, if it does, that the necessary amendments or rationalisations of those existing policies is also recommended.

 

(d)        the new policy is legally within power and that any financial or administrative implications have been properly considered, and

 

(e)        the new policy has been considered by the Corporate Management Team.

 

4.         The standard format for Council policies shall be as set out in the schedules attached.


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 3 – CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:   /      /                                                                 Policy No: 3.01.10

 

 

POLICY TITLE:   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE

 

 

File No:  C-25-2

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To ensure that the Council’s public image is enhanced by providing an acknowledgement of incoming correspondence.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That when action on a matter will not be finalised and responded to within a period of three (3) weeks following receipt of correspondence by the Council, an acknowledgement letter be forwarded to the correspondent indicating which Department (or Division) is handling the matter and the anticipated time before the matter will be finalised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:  261/1996                                                  Meeting Date:  24 September, 1996


(d)        has been approved by the Corporate Management Team.

 

3.         Should the Council pass a resolution in the nature of a policy decision, otherwise than as a consequence of the procedure described in paragraph 2, the resolution shall be regarded as an interim policy decision, and shall be referred to the General Manager for a report to the next appropriate meeting. In preparing that report, the General Manager shall ensure that:

 

(a)        the policy decision is presented to the Council in the standard format for policies,

 

(b)        the new policy is concisely and clearly worded,

 

(c)        the new policy does not conflict with any existing policy or, if it does, that the necessary amendments or rationalisations of those existing policies is also recommended.

 

(d)        the new policy is legally within power and that any financial or administrative implications have been properly considered, and

 

(e)        the new policy has been considered by the Corporate Management Team.

 

4.         The standard format for Council policies shall be as set out in the schedules attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:  276/1986                                                             Meeting Date:  24 June, 1986.

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 3 – CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:   /      /                                                                 Policy No: 3.01.10

 

 

POLICY TITLE:   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE

 

 

File No:  C-25-2

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To ensure that the Council’s public image is enhanced by providing an acknowledgement of incoming correspondence.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That when action on a matter will not be finalised and responded to within a period of three (3) weeks following receipt of correspondence by the Council, an acknowledgement letter be forwarded to the correspondent indicating which Department (or Division) is handling the matter and the anticipated time before the matter will be finalised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:  261/1996                                                  Meeting Date:  24 September, 1996


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 06/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

695 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

14 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1105/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment report for the Development Application No. 1105/2002 for demolition of the existing buildings on the site, and the construction of a 7 storey mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 dwellings, 1 commercial/retail tenancy and car parking for 21 vehicles, 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 29 October 2002.

2. A4 reduced plans    

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

14 February, 2003

FILE NO:

02/00358/GG

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a 7 storey mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 dwellings, 1 commercial/retail tenancy and car parking for 21 vehicles

PROPERTY:

695 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA

WARD:

Central Ward

APPLICANT:

HCMC Developments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, as it is valued at $2.9 million.

 

Two objections have been received to the application in response to its advertising and notification. The concerns raised relate to development density and design, traffic and parking impact, pedestrian safety and provision for access to the neighbouring northern property, and amenity related issues such as overshadowing and overlooking.

 

Following discussions with the applicant in relation to concerns about the floor space ratio (FSR), car parking provision and setbacks of the development, amended plans were submitted to Council on 11 October 2002 that reduced the number of proposed dwellings from 14 to 12, increased the size of the proposed light well on the northern side of the building, provided a 1.0m setback from the Mason Street boundary at the ground floor level to provide for a public footway, deleted encroachments of balconies over the Anzac Parade and Mason Street boundaries of the site, and reduced the size of the rear first floor terrace. Further amended plans were submitted to Council on 12 November 2002 following the results of a flood study that was   required to be undertaken on the site. The amendments included modifications to the driveway levels, changes to the basement and ground floor car parking layouts, and an increase in the provision of on-site car parking through the provision of car stackers on the basement parking level. The latest amended plans, dated 31 January 2003, include other minor amendments and improvements to the design of the development and are the subject of this report. The amended plans are considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions of Randwick LEP1998, the draft exhibited Urban Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre, and the draft DCP for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. 

 

The main issues in relation to the proposed development are considered to be FSR and car parking. The proposed development has a residential FSR of 2.68:1, which exceeds the 2.0:1 maximum residential FSR of LEP 1998, and a SEPP 1 objection has been submitted in this regard.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is considered to be well founded and the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey commercial building, rear garage and car ports on the site and to erect a 7 storey building comprising one commercial tenancy at the ground floor level and 12 dwellings over 6 levels above with ground and basement level parking for 21 vehicles.

 

Pedestrian access to the ground floor shop premises of the development is from the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

Access to the proposed car parking spaces and lobby serving the residential levels of the development is from the Mason Street frontage to the immediate south. Terrace and balcony areas serving the residential dwellings are proposed to the front and rear elevations of the building over levels 1 to 6. A light well is proposed central to the north elevation to provide light and natural ventilation to adjoining bedrooms and bathrooms of the residential units.

 

A 6.0m wide vehicular right of carriageway is proposed along the rear boundary of the site benefiting the adjoining northern property at No.693-693A Anzac Parade. It is also proposed to dedicate a 1.0m strip of land along the entire Mason Street frontage of the site to Council for road widening. This will allow for the provision of a 1.45m wide pedestrian footway along the northern side of the Mason Street frontage.

 

The residential accommodation will comprise 8 x three bedroom dwellings and 4 x two bedroom dwellings.

 

A common property roof terrace is also proposed, which is accessed by both stair and lift.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street within the Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of 552.3sq.m. It has a frontage to Anzac Parade of 13.55m and a southern frontage of 44.945m to Mason Street. The site has a gentle slope of approximately 1.5m from east to west.

 

Existing on the site is a freestanding, single-storey, brick cottage currently being used as medical offices, a rear brick garage and two metal carports.

 

Adjoining the site to the north is a two storey building, fronting Anzac Parade, which is used as a veterinary clinic. A side driveway along the southern boundary provides access to the rear of that building. Further to the north is a 7 storey, mixed-use development that has just been completed.

 

To the south, on the opposite side of Mason Street is a two storey commercial building. Further south, on the corner of Anzac Parade and Boyce Road, are recently constructed multi level residential developments with ground level retail premises.

 

To the west of the site, fronting Mason Street, are two storey residential dwellings.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

72/00035/DZ   To use premises as a ladies hairdressing salon Approved 15/02/72.

 

74/00153/DZ   To use part of the existing premises as a chiropody practice. Approved 25/09/74.

 

86/00022/DZ   To construct a McDonalds family restaurant for 100 patrons. Refused 2/04/86.

 

Following discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed FSR of the development, provision for car parking and for road widening in Mason Street, encroachments by balconies over the street frontages, and the potential for overlooking from the rear first floor terrace of the proposed development amended plans were submitted to Council on 11 October 2002. The amended plans involved a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings from 14 to 12, an increase in the size of the proposed light well to the northern side of the building, the provision of a 1.0m setback from the Mason Street boundary at the ground floor level to provide for a public footway, the removal of encroachments of balconies over the Anzac Parade and Mason Street boundaries of the site, and a reduction in the size of the rear first floor terrace. A sample board of proposed external finishes and colours for the development were also provided.

 

The applicant submitted further amended plans on 12 November 2002 in response to the findings of a flood study that was required to be undertaken on the site. The amendments principally involved adjustments to driveway levels and reconfiguration of the ground and basement floor car parking layouts. Also, car stackers have been provided to 6 of the car spaces proposed on the basement floor level to increase the provision of residential parking within the development, such that a total of 21 car parking spaces are now proposed. Additional landscaping details were also provided.

 

Further amended plans were submitted to Council on 3 December 2003 seeking to address issues with ramp grades within the proposed rear right of carriageway and to the basement and ground floor parking areas. These plans were advertised and notified to adjoining and nearby property owners. Subsequent to notification/advertising of the amended December 3 plans, further minor amendments were made to rectify identified anomalies in proposed driveway levels and ramp grades, to provide for a flood gate within the right of carriageway, and to improve the internal parking and garbage store layouts on the ground floor level. The latest amended plans dated 31 January 2003 incorporate these amendments and are the subject of this report.

 

The subject property is encumbered by an existing Deed of Agreement that was created in 1985 between Council and the owners of the subject property, in favour of Council. This covenant was an attempt to protect the interests of the adjoining northern property at 693-693A Anzac Parade and requires, inter alia, the following:

 

·    The dedication of a strip of land along the full Mason Street frontage for road widening purposes, such dedication to be a maximum 1.92 metres in width.
 
·    The dedication of a strip of land 6.7m wide extending along the western (i.e. rear) boundary of the site for the purposes of road widening upon the written request by or on behalf of the Council

 

The Deed also provides for certain floor space ratio and parking concessions for development of the site where Council has requested the 6.7m wide dedication and any development relates only to the balance of the land.  

 

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

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the requirements of Clause 23 and 24 of Randwick LEP1998 and attracted the following submissions:

 

Eric Strauss

100 Mason Street

MAROUBRA JUNCTION 2035

 

Concerns:

 

Building height and bulk relative to size and width of site

No provision for road widening along Mason Street frontage.

Architectural merit of proposed development/visual impact on streetscape

 

Coudert Brothers

Solicitor and International Attorneys

Level 8 Gateway

1 Macquarie Place

SYDNEY 2000

(on behalf of Mr and Mrs G and J O’Shea

owners 106 Mason Street and 693 Anzac Parade)

 

Concerns:

 

Contrary to the zone objective of minimising the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

Overlooking from rear balconies

Inadequate provision for car parking

Site should be consolidated with No.693 Anzac Parade as No693 will be surrounded to the north and south by large scale development

No provision for road widening along Mason Street frontage.

Building bulk and scale

Exceeds 2:1 residential FSR standard of LEP1998 resulting in excessive bulk and scale and increased overlooking and inadequate provision for car parking/ amount of residential floor space inappropriate given the predominance of low scale residential housing along Mason Street

Proposed development will exacerbate traffic problems in Mason Street and at its intersection with Anzac Parade, and adversely impact on surrounding residences

Compliance with ramp grade and car park design standards of Council’s DCP for Parking.

 

E and E Lyon

45 Mason Street

MAROUBRA 2035

 

Concerns:

 

No provision for waste storage receptacles on-street

Inadequate provision for car parking leading to increased parking congestion on-street

No provision for road widening along Mason Street frontage to allow pedestrian passage

Traffic hazard due to vehicles entering and leaving those proposed car spaces that are accessed directly from Mason Street.

 

The amended plans submitted to Council on 3 December 2002 were notified and advertised in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 and 24 of LEP1998 and the following submissions were received:

 

Coudert Brothers

Solicitor and International Attorneys

Level 8 Gateway

1 Macquarie Place

SYDNEY 2000

(on behalf of Mr and Mrs G and J O’Shea

owners 106 Mason Street and 693 Anzac Parade)

 

Concerns:

 

Contrary to the zone objective of minimising the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

Overlooking from rear balconies

Inadequate provision for car parking

Site should be consolidated with No.693 Anzac Parade as No693 will be surrounded to the north and south by large scale development

Width of proposed road widening in Mason Street and the rear right of carriageway benefiting to No.693 Anzac Parade does not conform with the requirements of the existing Deed of Agreement entered into between Council and Whorlton Pty Ltd (the previous owners of the subject site).

Building bulk and scale

Exceeds 2:1 residential FSR standard of LEP1998 resulting in excessive bulk and scale and increased overlooking and inadequate provision for car parking/ amount of residential floor space inappropriate given the predominance of low scale residential housing along Mason Street.

 

No details of the proposed car stackers have been provided, pylons between spaces 3 and 4 appear to be undersized, manoeuvring access to car space no.11 unacceptable, inadequate access provided to car space 12 as overlapped by space 13, car spaces 12 and 13 are separated from car spaces 14 and 15 by a mesh shutter which restricts good sight lines to Mason Street.

 

On street parking along adjacent street frontages in the vicinity of the site is already utilised and/or time restricted, thereby restricting its use by visitors and /or residents of the proposed development.

Proposed development will exacerbate traffic problems in Mason Street and at its intersection with Anzac Parade, and adversely impact on surrounding residences

The location of the proposed garbage store requires garbage to be taken through the lobby for collection, which is considered a poor design and unacceptable.

 

Anonymous submission

 

Concerns:

 

Building bulk and scale, overbearing effect on corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street          

 

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

 

Under the Building code of Australia, the classification of the proposed building is:

 

Class 2 - residential units.

Class 6 - commercial tenancy.

Class 7            - car park.

 

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

 

6.2       Landscape Issues

 

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

 

a)   One Melaleuca species (Paperbark) located along the Mason Street property boundary. This tree is a very old specimen, approximately 7 metres tall and in poor condition. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

b)   Two Pittosporum species (Pittosporum) located along the Mason Street property boundary. These two trees are approximately 6 metres tall and in extremely poor condition. As such permission should be granted for the removal of these trees.

 

c)   One Palm (species undetermined) located along the Mason Street property boundary. This palm is an immature specimen and as such permission should be granted for its removal.

 

d)   One Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree) located at the rear of the property, along the northern property boundary. This tree is a significant specimen, approximately 8 metres tall and in good health. Although it would be preferable to retain this tree, it is currently poorly located between a retaining wall and boundary fence and the possibility of retaining it in good health is not good. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one large replacement tree within the site.

 

e)   One Morus species (Mulberry Tree) located along the rear property boundary. This tree is a multi-trunked specimen, approximately 7 metres tall and in average to poor condition. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

f)    One Acmena smithii (Lilli Pilli) located in the north western corner of the site. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall, with a broad canopy and in good health. This tree will not be able to be retained due to the need to provide a right of way to the adjoining property. Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

g)   One Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located at the rear of the property, along the northern property boundary. This tree is approximately 10-12 metres tall and in average to poor condition. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one large replacement tree within the site.

 

6.3       Drainage Issues

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

There is a Council controlled stormwater drainage line located immediately west of the western site boundary. The applicant shall be required to ensure the structural integrity of the pipeline during and post construction.

 

6.4       Flooding issues

 

The development site is located adjacent to a localised low point/entrapped low point in Mason Street and may be subject to flooding during major storm events. A flood study (undertaken by Hyder Consulting) has been submitted by the applicant in conjunction with the development application and identifies the 1 in 100 year flood level for the site as being at RL 26.08 (AHD).

 

All habitable and storage areas shall be a minimum of 300 mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (i.e. minimum RL of 26.38 (AHD)) and all car parking spaces on the ground level shall be at least 150mm above the flood level (i.e. RL 26.23 (AHD)). Additionally, a high point/flood barrier shall be provided across the full width of the driveway (and all other access points to the basement carpark) to at least 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (i.e. to RL 26.23 (AHD).

 

The submitted plans show a high point along the right of way to the 1 in 100 year flood level (RL 26.08 (AHD)) with a floodgate providing the required freeboard. All other access points to the basement carpark are at least 150mm above the flood level. Provided that the floodgate requirements detailed below are satisfied, the AIS Department does not object to the floodgate being used in lieu of the required freeboard.

 

The floodgates shall be designed by a suitably qualified structural engineer and shall be designed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

1.   The flood gates shall automatically rise when water levels get to 300 mm below the high point in the driveway

 

2.   Provision shall be made for manual raising and lowering of the floodgates.

 

3.   Warning alarms and lights shall be provided to indicate when the flood gates are being raised and lowered

 

4.   A back up pumping system (with a suitably sized sump) shall be provided in the basement carpark.

 

5.   The floodgates shall be constructed with a full back-up system for both power supply and raising mechanism.

 

Full details of the proposed floodgates, including a maintenance/service schedule, shall be submitted to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

A positive covenant shall be created on the title of the subject property detailing the maintenance requirements for the floodgates.

 

Concerns were raised with the applicant regarding whether the floodgate could be installed permanently on the proposed right of carriageway. Legal advice received from the applicant’s solicitor (refer to attached letter from Kosmin & Associates dated 22 January 2003) states that ‘the document creating the right of way may state that the owner of the right of way shall be entitled to install, keep and maintain the floodgate on the right of way’. Thus it is considered that the floodgate may be installed and maintained over the right of way.

 

The new driveway shall be suspended on piers and the area beneath left open to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

6.5   Traffic/Parking Issues

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed development consisting of 12 residential units and 1 retail tenancy will be in the range of 48 to 60 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 6 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Mason Street or Anzac Parade as a result of this development.

 

Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the submitted plans and provides the following comments:

 

The proposal requires a total of 24 off street spaces to comply with Council’s DCP-Parking. A total of 21 spaces have been provided including 6 spaces, which have been provided by the use of car stackers.

 

The traffic report by Transport and Traffic Consultants states:

 

‘The allocation of spaces will be 7 apartments with 2 spaces, 5 apartments with 1 space each and 2 spaces for visitors. While the allocation of visitor spaces is slightly lower than Council’s code there is significant availability of on street parking in the area for visitors and the proposed allocation is considered to be quite acceptable in the circumstances.’

 

The allocation of parking is considered satisfactory provided that spaces 12 and 13 be allocated to the same 3 bedroom unit and that each of the car stackers be allocated to a particular unit. Furthermore car space no 15 must be signposted and linemarked ‘Visitor Parking/Wash Bay’ and car space no. 14 signposted and linemarked ‘Shop Parking'.

 

Although the residential component requires a total of 17 spaces and 19 have been allocated to them, it would be difficult to reassign two of these spaces to visitor/commercial parking due to the site constraints.     

 

The proposed stack parking arrangements have been reviewed by the applicant’s Transport and Traffic consultant and are considered to be satisfactory. Park plus have confirmed that there is adequate room for the car stackers to operate in parking spaces 3 and 4 (which are the narrowest parking spaces used for stack parking).   

 

In response to a letter dated 31 December 2002, from Couldert Brothers Solicitors acting on behalf of the owners of 693 Anzac Parade, Council’s traffic engineer provides the following additional comments:

 

The mesh shutter, which separates car spaces 12 and 13 from spaces 14 and 15, should be removed, as it will result in vehicles accessing the visitor spaces having to reverse into Mason Street when the shutter is down. This is not acceptable and would result in unsafe traffic conditions. In order to prevent visitors from parking in residential car spaces no. 12 and 13 collapsible bollards should be installed within the parking spaces.   

 

Further to the comments from the traffic engineer above, amended plans have been received which show the mesh screen being removed

 

It is noted that the proposed layout of the ground floor parking spaces would result in carspace 12 being inaccessible if a car were parked in space 13. Thus, it is recommended that the EPCD Department include a condition regarding carspaces 12 and 13 being allocated to the same unit (Note: A suitable condition has been included in the recommendation for approval).

 

The turning area on the ground floor shall be clearly marked and signposted to ensure that it is used as turning area and not an additional parking space.

 

Ramp grades

 

The amended basement and ground floor plan shows a high point of RL 26.08 (AHD) along the full width of the driveway and a high point to RL 26.23 (AHD) along the end of the right of way.

 

In achieving the required high points, it is noted that the ramp grades along the inside edge of the driveway ramp do not comply with the Australian Standards and may result in scraping. However, it is suggested that vehicles entering and exiting the basement carpark may be able to use the outside edge of the ramp in the critical section where scraping is likely to occur.

 

The current DCP requires that the internal driveway gradient not exceed 1 in 20 for the first 5 metres inside the property. The submitted plans show the driveway grade being 1 in 8 for the first 2.5 metres and 1 in 11 for the next 3.5 metres. It is noted that required high point in the driveway combined with the narrow width of the site would make it very difficult to obtain a ramp grade of only 1 in 20 for the first 5 metres.

 

It is recommended that minor amendments to the ramp grades (shown in red on the attached plan DA01 G) be made to all copies of the approved plans.

 

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

 

Splay Corners

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level, splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre or suitably setback from the street alignment so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The applicant must, at no cost to Council, dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner for road widening purposes on the south-east corner of the development site, (intersection of Mason Street and Anzac Parade).

 

6.6   Comments on Deed of Agreement between Council and Whorlton Pty Ltd.

 

It is understood that the Deed of Agreement created 26 March 1985 between Council and Whorlton Pty Ltd (the registered proprietor of Lot 40 of DP 8156 known as 695 Anzac Parade), sets out the following requirements in general terms:

 
·    Dedication of a 6.7 metre wide strip of land extending along the western boundary of the site for the purpose of creating a local road (pursuant to the former Randwick Planning Scheme). It is noted that the dedication is required upon the written request on or on behalf of the Council.
 
·    If the balance of the land (the land comprised in Lot 40 of DP 8156 less the 6.7 metre wide dedication) is the subject of a development application, the deed sets out:
o Concessions for parking provisions and floor space ratios.
o That Council may, as a condition of consent, request the dedication of a strip of land along the full Mason Street site frontage not exceeding 1.93 metres in width.

 

It is noted that the former Randwick Planning Scheme showed a road reservation along the rear of 679 to 695 Anzac Parade and the proposed 6.7 metre wide dedication at the rear of 695 was to form part of this road.

 

It is understood that this road reservation is no longer shown on Council’s zoning maps. Thus it is considered that the 6.7 metre wide land dedication is no longer required. Thus, as suggested by Council’s Solicitors in their letter dated 16 August 2002, it is recommended that the deed be brought to an end.

 

Given that the proposed dedication would have provided vehicular access to 693 Anzac Parade from Mason Street, it is considered appropriate for a 6 metre wide right of carriage way to be provided over the rear of 695 Anzac Parade as proposed by the applicant.

 

A condition regarding a 6.0 metre wide right of carriageway being provided over the rear of 695 Anzac Parade has been included in this report.

 

It is noted that the proposed driveway to be constructed over the right of carriageway will have a high point elevated approximately 900mm above the existing ground levels. This is to protect the proposed development from flooding.

 

To ensure that access is provided over the right of carriageway serving No. 693 Anzac Parade, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by the certifying authority, longitudinal cross sections showing satisfactory ramp grades along the extremities and the centreline of the right of carriageway, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. 

 

6.7       Road Widening Comments

 

Given that the 6.7 metre wide land dedication along the western (rear) boundary is not being adhered to, the deed (referred to above) is no longer applicable to the application and the maximum 1.93 metre wide road widening dedication along the Mason Street site frontage is no longer relevant.

 

The subject development site is covered by Council’s Subdivision Policy with respect to road widening. The policy specifies that a 4.57 metre wide strip of land shall be dedicated along the Mason Street frontage.

However, given the size of the site, it is considered unreasonable to request a large land dedication along Mason Street. Thus, the DAIS recommends that the applicant be requested to dedicate to Council a minimum 1 metre wide strip of land along the Mason Street site frontage for road widening purposes. The dedication will make provision for a footpath to be constructed at least 1.45 metres in width between the back of kerb and the adjusted property alignment.

A condition has been included in this report regarding the requirement for a 1 metre strip of land to be dedicated to Council along the full Mason Street site frontage.

It is noted that the submitted plans show the 1 metre land dedication along the Mason Street site frontage and the 3m x 3m splay corner being dedicated on ground level only. Given the site constraints, the AIS Department does not object to this proposal provided that adequate clearance is provided above the dedications. The submitted plans show a clearance of 4.65 metres which is considered to be satisfactory.

 

6.8       Waste Management Issues

 

The residential garbage areas must be able to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. The garbage area shown on the submitted plans appears to be adequately sized for the residential component of the development.

 

To facilitate the bins being wheeled to the street, it is recommended that the stairs located at the entrance to the garbage area be replaced with a ramp.

 

A separate garbage area capable of containing at least 2 x 240 litre bins (1 x garbage and 1 x recycling) shall be provided for the retail unit.

 

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.

 

6.9       Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd

 

Under the provisions of the Air Navigation (Building Control) Regulations the concurrence of Sydney Airports Corporation is required for the construction of the proposed development on the subject site, which lies within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport. The Corporation have given their approval for the proposed development.

 

6.10     Urban Design Advisory Service

 

The application was referred to the Urban Design Advisory Service for comments. A number of modifications to improve the design of the proposal were recommended and these have been incorporated into the amended plans, the subject of this report.  

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the site is less than 4000sq.m in area.

 

8.         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

-     State Environmental Planning Policy No.65-Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

-Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-Building Code of Australia

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned General Business 3A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal: -

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 – FSR

3.0:1 (incl. max 2.0:1 residential)

2.985:1(including 2.68:1 residential)

Overall FSR complies. Residential FSR component does not comply. SEPP 1 objection submitted. See Section 9.2.1.

33 - Building Height

Max.24m

Max.23.8m

Yes

 

The recently exhibited Draft Amendment No.33 to Randwick LEP1998 introduces objectives and design standards for development in the Maroubra Town Centre, which are designed to complement and reinforce the objectives and design provisions of the draft exhibited Development Control Plan for the Centre. The amendment sets as statutory standards the maximum number of storeys and corresponding maximum heights (as measured to the underside of the ceiling of the uppermost floor from ground level), applying to sites throughout the Maroubra Town Centre under the draft DCP. The proposal is consistent with the stated aims of Amendment No.33 and complies with the maximum 7 storey and 24m height standards applying to development on the site.

 

8.5  Policy Controls

 

The following policy guidelines apply to the proposed development:

 

a.   Development Control Plan No.15 - Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre.

 

      At its Health Building and Planning Committee meeting held on September 11 2001, Council endorsed the contents of a Maroubra Junction Position Paper prepared by the Planning and Environment Department which recommended that preference be given to the principles contained in the Urban Design Advisory Service’s (UDAS) study in any future discussions with applicants of new and proposed developments in the centre.  It was also recommended that following the exhibition of the UDAS study and completion of a draft DCP for Maroubra Junction, a recommendation would be made to Council to adopt the DCP as interim policy for assessment of proposed developments in the centre. Council also agreed to the exhibition of the position paper and the UDAS study along with a retail/commercial study of the centre undertaken by Leyshon Consulting. The position paper, the UDAS study and retail/commercial study was exhibited from 18 September to 18 October last year.

 

      The final draft DCP for Maroubra Town Centre was exhibited for a period of 28 days from the 13 November to 11 December. The draft DCP incorporates the design principles espoused in the exhibited Draft UDAS study.

 

b.   Development Control Plan - Parking.

c.   Section 94 Contributions Plan.

d.   Exhibited Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Town Centre.

e.   Draft DCP - Maroubra Town Centre (current draft dated July 2002).

 

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       SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The development is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the ten design quality principles is included below.

 

General Approach

 

The proposed development provides a suitable street edge to both Anzac Parade and Mason Street. It will result in a quality environment for the future residents and for passers-by. Building articulation increases aesthetic appeal and responds to the potential environmental impacts upon adjoining properties and the streetscape. The development has been professionally designed by Joshua Farkash and Associates Pty Ltd and is consistent with SEPP 65 in terms of its general approach to the site and uses contained within the building.

 

Principle 1: Context

 

The design of the proposed development responds to the adjoining buildings along Anzac Parade and residential development to the west of the site in Mason Street. Street and the change in scale between these two frontages. The proposed building is to be constructed to the street edge in Anzac Parade and Mason Street and to the northern side boundary with the adjoining commercial premises at No.693 Anzac Parade, which is consistent with existing development along Anzac Parade and as espoused in the exhibited draft UDAS Guidelines and the DCP for the Maroubra Town Centre. The building incorporates a high degree of articulation and architectural detailing which reinforces the existing architectural style and character of recent approved development in the centre.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 1of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 2: Scale

 

The bulk and scale of the development is consistent with nearby multi-level, mixed-use development to the north and south along Anzac Parade. The building’s facades are well modulated and articulated given the narrow width of the site, and the building scale relates appropriately to nearby multi level development along Anzac Parade. The upper two levels of the proposed building are set back from the street edge to Anzac Parade, similar to nearby development, which reduces the visual bulk and scale of the building as viewed from Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 2 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 3: Built Form

 

The building is suitably articulated to reduce bulk. The street elevations have been composed to create a suitable base, middle and top section consistent with nearby multi-level, mixed-use development along Anzac Parade. The use of vertical elements and recessed balconies further serve to modulate the building façade and create visual interest in the built form.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 3 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 4: Density

 

The expected number of residents is appropriate for the site area and its location close to local shopping amenities and public transport. The proposal offers additional housing choice and endeavours to maximise on-site parking provision so as to minimise its impact on the availability of on street parking. The proposal complies with the allowable maximum floor space ratio of 3:1 under the Randwick LEP 1998 and is consistent with the objectives of the density control. Although the residential FSR component of the proposed development exceeds the 2:1 residential FSR standard of LEP1998, the proposal is located towards the periphery of the Maroubra Commercial Centre outside the main commercial core and makes adequate provision for residential on-site parking.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 4 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The proposed development has been designed with these principles in mind. All primary living areas of the units will have direct access to outdoor balconies and terraces. All proposed units will benefit from either morning or afternoon sunlight with window openings proportioned to allow good daylight penetration. The balconies on the east and west elevation will provide shading to the glazed areas beneath. The size, location and open plan design of the proposed units ensures that significant levels of natural ventilation of the units will be achieved. A Nat HERS Certificate has been submitted with the application demonstrating that the proposal will achieve an average 3.6 star rating. All fixtures and taps are proposed to be of a water conserving type.  

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 5 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

 

The site is located within a commercial context where the proposed building is to be constructed to the street edges of the site. A further constraint relates to the required provision of a 6m wide right of carriageway to maintain vehicular access to the adjoining northern property at No.693 Anzac Parade and the provision of driveway access to the basement car parking levels of the development which limits the provision of landscaping within the rear setback of the development. However, landscaping is proposed, predominantly in the form of planter boxes to terrace/balcony areas and below window sills for privacy, and adjacent to the footpath along the Mason Street frontage. The ground floor level of the building is set back 1.0m from the Mason Street boundary to provide for a public pedestrian footway approximately 1450mm in width.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 6 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

 

The development provides indoor and outdoor spaces that will be comfortable and practical to use. Dimensions and layout will appropriately control sunlight to living areas and provide natural ventilation to units.  Areas of outdoor open space in the form of terraces and balconies adjoin the main living areas of each unit.  Unit layouts and design provides good opportunities for surveillance while maintaining privacy. The development provides for storage within the basement car parking level and for direct access from the quieter Mason Street frontage into the lobby and lift that provides access to the residential levels of the development. Internally, the bedrooms of the proposed units are of generous proportions, with ensuites being provided to main bedrooms, and the living areas are of a convenient, practical open- plan design.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 7 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 8: Safety and Security

 

The proposal provides for good safety and security. Balconies and windows provide surveillance to the street frontages and neighbouring properties, without compromising privacy. The development has minimised the length of internal corridor spaces and has minimised the number of units sharing circulation routes to encourage a sense of community. Pedestrian access points are provided directly from the Mason Street frontage and are delineated from the commercial shopfront, which separately addresses the Anzac Parade frontage. A proposed awning canopy further defines the pedestrian entrance lobby.

 

The proposal is consistent with Principle 8 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

 

The apartments 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 will meet 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 while also providing its own commercial shopfront floor space.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Principle 9 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

Three-dimensional illustrations of the proposal indicate that the overall form and detailing of the building are appropriate and suitable for the site. The proposed fenestration treatment, architectural composition and external finishes of the building’s facades achieve a suitable base, middle and top for the development. The external finishes and colour scheme proposed for the development are satisfactory. However, it is recommended that the proposed glazed balustrading to balconies be of a `translucent type such as frosted or sandblasted glazing. 

Conclusion:

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

 

9.5       Randwick LEP 1998

 

9.2.1    Floor Area

 

A 2.0:1 maximum residential and 3.0:1 maximum overall floor space ratio (FSR) applies to development on the site by virtue of Clauses 32(3) of the LEP. The proposed development has a maximum 2.68:1 residential FSR and 2.985:1 maximum overall FSR.

 

The proposal therefore exceeds the maximum residential FSR standard but complies with the overall maximum FSR standard.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards in respect of the proposal’s departure from the 2.0:1 residential FSR standard. In the objection, the applicant submits that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio within the maximum limit permitted. The proposed proportion of residential use, within the mixed-use development, exceeds the maximum of 2.0:1.

 

The additional residential floor space is considered appropriate given the site’s location on the periphery of the Commercial Centre. The 172sq.m of commercial floor space will be adequate to retain the retail character and activate the street frontage.

 

The non-compliance with the residential FSR will not adversely affect adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views. Shadow diagrams have been submitted with the application. The diagrams demonstrate that during winter, the shadowing will only occur on commercial developments on the opposite (i.e. southern) corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street.

 

The bulk and scale of the development is consistent with recently constructed mixed-use developments along Anzac Parade. The proposed development is well articulated with its bulk and scale being reduced by proposed large terraces and planter boxes on each level and variations in setbacks.

 

Assessment

 

The purpose of the floor space standards as stated in the LEP 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 amenity impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The proposed development is located on the periphery of the Maroubra Town Centre where it is appropriate for the commercial component of development to be less dominant, with the residual floor space being allocated towards the residential component. The proposal still provides for an active commercial street frontage to Anzac Parade.  

 

The proposed development is compatible in height, bulk, and scale with nearby recently constructed mixed-use developments to the north and south along Anzac Parade, and no unreasonable adverse amenity impacts by way of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views will be occasioned to adjoining or nearby properties.

 

The proposal is consistent with the design principles espoused in SEPP 65 and as exhibited in the nearby 8 level mixed use development to the north at No.691 Anzac Parade which is currently nearing completion. The proposed development is also consistent with the provisions of the DCP for the Maroubra Town Centre and the applicant has complied with the advice provided by UDAS in relation to the design of the development.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that shadows cast by the proposed development will only fall onto the neighbouring two storey commercial building on the southern corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street and that no residential properties will be affected between 9.00am and 3.00pm in mid winter.

 

No adverse overlooking or loss of privacy will be occasioned to neighbouring residential development to the north and west and the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the 3A zone in that it maintains an active commercial street frontage to Anzac Parade which will contribute to the continued viability of the Maroubra Town Centre, is located in close proximity to public transport, provides for improved pedestrian access along the Mason Street frontage by providing a 1.0m wide pedestrian easement along that frontage, and does not unreasonably impact on neighbouring and nearby development in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy or views.

 

Having regard to the above, the SEPP 1 objection to the FSR standards is considered to be well founded.

 

9.3       Draft DCP for the Maroubra Town Centre

 

Standard:

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Building Height

Max. 7 storeys

7 storeys

Yes

Minimum Floor to Ceiling Height

Ground floor-3.6m

 

First floor-3.3m

 

Above first floor-2.7m

4.7m

 

2.8m

 

2.7-2.8m

Yes

 

No. Refer to Assessment below.

Yes

Building Use

2 levels of commercial with residential above.

1 level of commercial with residential above.

No. Refer to Assessment below.

Building zone

Maximum 30m (max.27m wall to wall)

Maximum 33.7m (max. 26.7m wall to wall)

Maximum 30m building depth exceeded. Maximum wall-to-wall complies. Refer to Assessment below.

Articulation zone

Front and back of building to be articulated to a minimum depth of 1m.

Complies.

Yes

Setbacks

Front setback:

Along Anzac Parade: Nil

 

Side setback:

Along Anzac Parade: Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rear setback:

Minimum 6m

 

Nil

 

 

 

Nil (1.0m at ground level along Mason Street frontage to accommodate a wider public pedestrian footway)

 

 

 

Minimum 6.2m to rear ground floor pergola.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Proposal complies except for 1.0m setback at ground floor level along Mason Street frontage, which is required for a public pedestrian footway. Satisfactory.

 

Yes.

 

Assessment:

 

As indicated in the above table, the proposed development is compliant with most of the standards applying to development on the site under the draft DCP, with the exception of minor departures from the first floor floor-to-ceiling height and maximum building depth standards, and the proposed first floor use as residential rather than for commercial use.

 

The draft DCP recommends the provision of two levels of commercial floor space. A single level of commercial floor space is proposed, which is considered acceptable given the site’s location on the periphery of the town centre. Furthermore, it is considered that commercial vehicle movements along Mason Street should be minimised due to its narrow width adjacent to the site and the residential nature of development along Mason Street immediately to the west of the site. The provision of a second level of commercial floor space would increase the number of commercial traffic movements along Mason Street. Notwithstanding this, the proposed 2.8m floor to ceiling height of the first floor could be readily increased to 3.0m to allow flexibility in its future use.

 

While the proposed development complies with the 27m wall-to-wall standard recommended in the draft DCP, the proposed front and rear balconies to the residential levels of the building exceed the 30m maximum building depth standard of the DCP. The proposed balconies/terraces provide good articulation to the building’s facades while at the same time providing for substantial private open space areas adjacent to the open plan living areas of the dwellings, and perimeter planters for internal privacy and to restrict overlooking of neighbouring residential development. The residential levels of the proposed building are set back well in excess of the minimum 6.0m rear setback standard of the DCP, with rear setbacks of minimum 11.6m up to 17.6m being achieved to the proposed rear balconies on the residential levels.

 

The proposal provides well cross ventilation for the residential units of the development through orientation and the provision of a substantial central light well area on the northern side of the building. 

 

The proposed development is considered to satisfactorily address all relevant standards of the DCP.

 

9.4       Car parking and Traffic Issues

 

 

Table 1: Number of car parking spaces

 

USE

 

REQUIREMENT

(DCP- Parking)

 

PROPOSED

NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

 

REQUIRED

PROVISION

 

PROPOSED

PROVISION

 

Commercial

 

 

Residential

 

1 space per 40sq.m GFA

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

 

 

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwelling

 

 

168.7sq.m

 

 

4 x two bedroom dwellings (4 x 1.2  = 4.8 spaces)

 

 

8 x three bedroom dwellings (8 x 1.5 = 12 spaces)

 

4.2 spaces

 

 

16.8 (17) spaces

 

2 spaces*

 

 

19 residential spaces (including 6 stacked using car stackers at the basement floor level)

 

 

 

 

 

Visitors:

1 space per 4 dwellings

 

Bicycles:

1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

 

12 dwellings

 

 

 

 

Provision for bicycle storage proposed on the Basement Parking level

 

3 spaces

 

 

 

 

4 residential and 1 visitor bicycle space

 

2 spaces*

 

 

 

 

Proposed bicycle/ store room is of sufficient size to accommodate required provision. Satisfactory.

* Note: The 2 visitor spaces on the ground floor level are to be provided as both commercial and residential visitor parking spaces for the development.

 

 

Table 2:  Dimensions of car parking spaces

 

 

Item

 

Council Requirement

 

Proposal Provides

 

    Compliance

 

Layout

 

 

 

5.5m x 2.5 m car spaces (3.0m width for end bays adjacent to walls)

 

6.0 - 7.0m aisles width (one way or two-way)

 

 

 

 

 

Stacked parking of vehicles is not permitted.

 

5.5m x 2.5m generally (min 2.8m to end bays adjacent to walls)

 

6.5m

 

 

 

 

 

Stacked parking of two vehicles only (spaces 12 and 13) is proposed within the ground floor level car parking area.

Double car stackers are proposed for spaces 1 to 6 on the basement parking level.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Satisfactory. Car park layout satisfactorily complies with Australian Standard (AS) 2890.1 for car parking design.

 

No, however, each pair of stacked parking spaces is to be allocated to one residential apartment only

This arrangement is considered acceptable.

 

The total car parking requirement for the proposed development under DCP - Parking is 24 spaces. As indicated in Table 1 above, the proposal provides a total of 21 spaces of which 6 spaces are to be provided in a stacked arrangement involving the use of two-vehicle car stackers (i.e. car bays 1 to 6 on the basement level). Each car stacker is to be attached to one apartment. This is considered an acceptable arrangement having regard to the development constraints of the site which include, the required provision of a 6.0m wide rear right of carriageway to the neighbouring northern property at No.693 Anzac Parade, constraints on driveway and ramp access design due to required flood levels, and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the demand for car parking generated by the proposal and the built-form objectives of Randwick LEP1998 and the DCP for Maroubra Junction. 

 

The 2 visitor spaces on the ground floor level are to be provided as both commercial and residential visitor parking spaces for the development. This arrangement is considered acceptable due to the difference in demand times between the normal operating hours of commercial premises and residential visitor demand which typically occurs outside   normal business hours. The timber shutter entry to the commercial/visitor parking spaces is proposed to remain open during business hours. However, in order to ensure access to the 2 spaces for residential visitors outside of business hours, the shutter entry should be required to be of an automatic type with a suitable security intercom system. This shall be required by condition of development consent.    

 

The proposal is deficient in parking provision under the DCP by 2 commercial and 1 visitor parking spaces. However, the development provides 2 more residential spaces than required under the DCP. Seven of the twelve proposed apartments are to be provided with two car parking spaces each, which affords the opportunity for visitors to those apartments to utilise car parking spaces not being used by the occupants.

 

Council may accept contributions in lieu of deficient commercial car parking spaces under its Section 94 Contributions Plan. A contribution in lieu of 2 deficient commercial parking spaces is recommended.

 

In support of the proposed parking arrangements, the applicant has submitted turning manoeuvring diagrams demonstrating satisfactory access to and from the proposed car parking spaces of the development. Details of the proposed car stackers have also been provided, which demonstrate that the proposed car parking bays are of sufficient height and width to accommodate car stackers.  

 

The applicant has also submitted Traffic and Parking report prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates, which is supported by a local on-street parking survey. The report concludes, based on the survey findings, that there is significant availability of on-street parking north of Boyce Road within satisfactory walking distance of the development site for visitors of the development.

 

Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable from a parking aspect.

 

9.5       Landscaping and Communal Open Space

 

There are no landscaping requirements for commercially zoned areas. Opportunities for the provision of ground level landscaping are limited due to the proposed 6.0m right of carriageway over the rear of the site, which is required to access the neighbouring northern property at No.693A Anzac Parade. However, some ground level landscaping is proposed along the Mason Street frontage and immediately adjacent to the rear of the building, as well as in the form of planter boxes to the Mason street frontage and balcony and rooftop terrace areas, which will assist in softening the appearance of the building from the street and neighbouring properties.

The proposed development incorporates a roof level communal open space that includes provision for tables and seating within a paved terrace area with perimeter planters, which will contribute to the amenity of the development for future residents.

 

9.6       Amenity Impacts

 

9.6.1    Overshadowing

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that shadows cast by the proposed development will only fall onto the neighbouring two storey commercial building on the southern corner of Anzac Parade and Mason Street. No residential properties will be overshadowed by the proposed development between the hours of 9.00am to 3.00pm in mid winter. The rear yard areas of residential dwellings to the west of the site will not be affected by shadows cast by the proposed development. The proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

9.6.2    Privacy and Overlooking

 

The amended plans subject of this report have provided for a reduction in the size of the rear first floor terrace and the introduction of planters to balcony/terrace areas on the western and northern elevations of the proposed development, which will adequately restrict the potential for adverse overlooking of neighbouring residential development. It is also recommended that the proposed glazed balustrading of the building be of a translucent type. This will further reduce the overlooking potential while at the same time improving the privacy levels of the proposed apartments and their associated private open space balcony/terrace areas.

 

9.6.3    Views

 

The subject site and the surrounding land are relatively flat. No significant existing views from neighbouring properties will be affected by the proposed development. The proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

9.7       Section 94 Contributions

 

The proposed development attracts a parking contribution in lieu of two deficient on-site commercial parking spaces, of  $22,250.00

 

As there will be no increase in the amount of existing commercial floor space provided on the site, no townscape contributions are applicable 

 

The proposal also attracts contributions in lieu of the provision of open space and community facilities, of $29,027.52 and $12,834.88 respectively.

 

9.8       Deed of Agreement

 

The subject property is encumbered by an existing Deed of Agreement that was created in 1985 between Council and the owners of the subject property, in favour of Council. This covenant was an attempt to protect the interests of the adjoining northern property at 693-693A Anzac Parade and requires, inter alia, the following:

 

·        The dedication of a strip of land along the full Mason Street frontage for road widening purposes, such dedication to be a maximum 1.92 metres in width.
 
·        The dedication of a strip of land 6.7m wide extending along the western (i.e. rear) boundary of the site for the purposes of road widening upon the written request by or on behalf of the Council

 

The Deed also provides for certain floor space ratio and parking concessions for development of the site where Council has requested the 6.7m wide dedication and any development relates only to the balance of the land.  

 

Council is not requiring the dedication of the 6.7m strip of land for road widening purposes as the recently completed development further north at No.687-691 Anzac Parade, which is constructed to the rear boundary of the site, has negated the opportunity of providing a continuous through lane way along the rear of Anzac Parade properties between Mason Street and Gale Road. A 6.0m wide right of carriageway has been proposed along the rear boundary of the development, which will provide satisfactory two-way vehicular access to the adjoining northern property at No.693-693A Anzac Parade. A 1 metre strip of land is proposed to be dedicated to Council along the Mason Street frontage for road widening purposes, which will allow for the provision of a 1.45m wide pedestrian footway along the northern side of the Mason Street frontage.

 

9.9       Resident Submissions

 

The majority of the issues/concerns raised in local resident submissions have been previously discussed. Outstanding concerns requiring further comment are identified and addressed below.

 

Building height and bulk relative to size and width of site

 

Comment:

The proposed development complies with the 24m-height standard of Randwick LEP1998 and the 7-storey height control of the Maroubra Junction DCP. No minimum site frontages apply to development in the Maroubra Town Centre. The proposed development incorporates strong horizontal design elements such as the solid masonry framework to the balconies on the street and rear elevations, the proportioning of window openings, projecting roof elements, and the proposed external materials, finishes and colour scheme. The upper two levels of the proposed development are setback from the Anzac Parade alignment and incorporate different external material treatments to the levels below which will further reduce the apparent visual bulk and scale of the building as viewed from the adjacent street frontages and neigbouring properties. 

 

Proposed development contrary to the zone objective of minimising the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

Comments:

The proposal complies with the maximum overall 3.0:1 FSR and 24m height standards of LEP1998. The proposed building is well set back from the rear boundary of the property.

and does not unreasonable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties by way of overshadowing, loss of privacy or otherwise.

 

Site should be consolidated with No.693 Anzac Parade as No693 will be surrounded to the north and south by large scale development

 

Comment:

The applicant advises that approaches were made to the owner of the neighbouring property to the north (No.693-693A Anzac Parade) to consolidate the two sites, but that the selling price requested by the neighbouring property owners was greatly in excess of the market value making any redevelopment option uneconomical. Notwithstanding this,

no minimum site frontages apply to development in the Maroubra Town Centre and the proposed development is considered to perform satisfactorily in its own right. Further, the property No.693-693A Anzac Parade is of similar in width, length, configuration and area to the subject site and is therefore capable of being developed in a similar manner.

 

Proposed development will exacerbate traffic problems in Mason Street and at its intersection with Anzac Parade, and adversely impact on surrounding residences

 

Comment:

The proposed development is expected to generate 48 to 60 vehicle movements per day. The expected peak flow volume of 6 vehicles per hours is considered low and no delays in Mason Street should be experienced in Mason Street or Anzac Parade as a result of this development.

 

Compliance with ramp grade and car park design standards of Council’s DCP for Parking.

 

The necessity to achieve required flood levels has resulted in the ramp grades to the basement car park exceeding the standards of Council’s DCP-Parking. However, the proposed ramp grades, being 1 in 5 with 1in 8 transitions, will operate satisfactorily for the development.

 

Proposed car space and aisle widths do not strictly comply with the DCP. However, the design of the proposed car parking layout (aisle widths and dimensions) satisfactorily meets Australian Standard (AS) 2890.1 for car park design and is considered acceptable.

 

No provision for waste storage receptacles on-street

 

Comment:

Satisfactory provision for the placement of waste storage facilities on-street will be available for the proposed development.

 

Traffic hazard due to vehicles entering and leaving those proposed car spaces that are accessed directly from Mason Street on the ground floor level.

 

Comment:

The amended plans, the subject of this report, provide adequate turning/manoeuvring and sight lines for vehicles using the ground floor car parking area.

 

No details of the proposed car stackers have been provided, pylons between spaces 3 and 4 appear to be undersized, manoeuvring access to car space no.11 unacceptable, inadequate access provided to car space 12 as overlapped by space 13, car spaces 12 and 13 are separated from car spaces 14 and 15 by a mesh shutter which restricts good sight lines to Mason Street.

 

Comment:

 

Details of the proposed car stackers to be provided to car bays 1 to 6 on the basement level have been submitted and assessed and are considered to be acceptable.

 

Car spaces 3 and 4  (and similarly, spaces 7 and 8) are of sufficient width for the turning/manoeuvring of vehicles using those spaces. Car spaces 12 and 13, which are to be provided in a stacked arrangement, are to be allocated to one residential unit. This arrangement is considered to be acceptable.

 

Access to car bay No.11 on the basement parking level will require a 5-point turning manoeuvre to either enter or exit this bay in a forward direction. Although this arrangement is not ideal, the car space is still quite usable. The development provides two residential car parking spaces in excess of that required under Council’s DCP-Parking, with any unused stacked parking spaces in bays 1 to 6 and 13 being available for parking by visitors of the units allocated these bays.

 

The amended plans provide for the deletion of the roller shutter between spaces 12 and 13, and 14 and 15, and the provision of collapsible bollards to the front of the car spaces 12 and 13 so as to prevent them from being accessible to visitor vehicles and for security reasons. The removal of the roller shutter has improved the provision for turning/ manoeuvring access within the ground floor car parking area while at the same time improving sight lines for vehicles using the car parking area to an acceptable level.

 

On street parking along adjacent street frontages in the vicinity of the site is already utilised and/or time restricted, thereby restricting its use by visitors and /or residents of the proposed development.

 

Comment:

 

Council’s DCP-Parking requires the provision of 3 residential visitor parking spaces for the 12 proposed dwellings within the development. The proposed development will provide 2 visitor parking spaces on the ground floor level, which will be available for commercial use during business hours (when residential visitor parking demand is typically low) and for residential visitor use outside of business hours. The development also provides 2 residential car spaces in excess of that required by DCP-Parking, and any unused or unutilised stacked car parking spaces allocated to residential units within the development (i.e. in bays 1 to 6 and 13) will effectively be available as informal residential visitor parking. The demand for residential visitor parking will be adequately accommodated by the proposed development. A car parking contribution in lieu of the 2 deficient commercial car parking spaces can be applied.

 

The location of the proposed garbage store requires garbage to be taken through the lobby for collection, which is considered a poor design and unacceptable.

 

Comment:

 

The amended plans, the subject of this report, have addressed this concern.  

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory design response to the site that adequately addresses all relevant assessment criteria, and the SEPP 1 objection to the 2.0:1 residential FSR standard of the LEP is considered to be well founded.

 

The height, form, bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with existing and recently constructed multi-level, mixed-use development along this section of Anzac Parade and provides an acceptable streetscape fit.

 

No significant adverse amenity impacts will be occasioned to neighbouring residential development in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views.

 

The proposal also performs satisfactorily from a parking and traffic aspect.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A         THAT the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No. 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 32(3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to residential floor space ratio) on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B          THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 358/2002 for Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a 7 storey mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 dwellings, 1 commercial/retail tenancy and car parking for 21 vehicles at No. No.695 Anzac Parade, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

1.         The applicant shall create a minimum 6.0 metre wide right of carriage way in favour of the property No.693-693A Anzac Parade over the rear of the site, as indicated in the plan Drawing No.DA01-Revision G prepared by Joshua Farkash and Associates Pty Ltd and dated 28 January 2003. The document creating the right of way shall be prepared by a suitably qualified solicitor and shall state that ‘the owner of the right of way shall be entitled to install, keep and maintain the floodgate on the right of way’. The applicant shall meet all costs associated with creating the right of carriageway.

 

2.         The external finishes and colours of the development shall be in accordance with the colour/materials sample board prepared by Joshua Farkash and Associates Pty Ltd dated as received by Council on 10 October 2003. In this regard, the proposed glazed balustrading is to be of a `translucent type, such as frosted or sandblasted glazing.

 

Coloured elevations detailing the proposed colours, materials and textures to be used on the external facades of the development are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 6 months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulation 1998, or the consent will lapse.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 01-Revision H, DA 02, 03 and 03a-Revision B and DA 05-Revision E, dated 31 January 2003 and received by Council on 31 January 2003, DA 04-Revision E dated 6 February 2003 and received by Council on 7 February 2003, and the landscape details shown in Landscape Concept Plans L00, L01, L02, L05 and L06-Issues B dated 15 October 2002, and L03 and L04-Issues C dated 31 January 2003 received by Council on 31 January 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         The first floor, floor-to-ceiling height is to be increased to 3.0m and bicycle racking for 5 bicycles (i.e. 4 resident and 1 visitor bicycle space) is to be provided within the proposed  ‘store room and bicycle storage’ room on the basement parking level. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.         All existing outbuildings on the site must be demolished and removed in conjunction with the development.

 

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

 

9.         A separate Development Application for the use of the ground floor shop tenancy is required to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to occupancy.

 

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

 

11.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

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

 

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

 

13.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator, for details see the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au\customer\urban\index or telephone 13 20 92.

 

            Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will be forwarded detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

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

 

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

 

14.       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             $29,027.52

b)         for the provision or improvement of community facilities $12,834.88

c)         for car parking (in lieu of 2 deficient commercial car spaces)$22,250.00

d)         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.

 

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

 

15.       Access and facilities for people with disabilities must (as a minimum) be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for parking to the development:

 

16.       Carspaces 12 and 13 are to be allocated to the same unit.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

22.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

24.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions and detailing any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

 

25.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, veranda’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the above stated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

26.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that 'unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited' and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, in accordance with clause 78H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994.

 

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

 

27.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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.

 

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

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s approval:

 

·          Sediment control measures.

·          Provision of perimeter fences or hoardings for public safety and restricted access to building sites.

·          Maintenance of the public place free from unauthorised materials, waste containers or other obstructions.

 

32.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

33.       Retaining walls or shoring must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land, if the soil conditions require it, and adequate provisions are to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       In addition to the matters contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the following matters are to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development consent, prior to the occupation of the building:

 

a)         car parking and vehicular access

b)         landscaping

c)         stormwater drainage

d)         external finishes and materials

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

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

 

42.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

43.       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.

 

44.       During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·          the slope of the land

·          site access points and access control measures

·          location and type of all sediment control measures

·          location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·          material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·          location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·          proposed disposal of site water

·          location of building operations and equipment

·          proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

45.       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.

 

46.       A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

47.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

48.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

49.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

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

 

50.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

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

 

51.       The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

52.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         Construct full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossings opposite the vehicular entry/exit points for the site.

 

b)         Remove any redundant concrete vehicular crossings and to reinstate the area to Council's specification.

 

c)         Remove the existing stone kerb in Anzac Parade and construct new kerb and gutter for the full site frontage.

 

d)         Carry out a full depth, minimum 2 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage in Anzac Parade.

 

e)         Construct a 1.45m wide footpath along the full Mason Street site frontage except opposite the vehicular entry/exit points. The footpath construction works shall be in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre.

 

f)          Remove the existing footpath along the Anzac Parade site frontage and to reconstruct the footpath in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre.

 

54.       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.

 

55.       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.

 

56.       All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

57.       Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the applicant shall submit to the Certifying Authority for approval, and have approved, longitudinal sections along the extremities and the centreline of each internal driveway/access ramp at a scale of 1:20. Each section shall indicate compliance with Council’s issued alignment levels and the required high point of at least RL 26.23 (AHD). Vehicular access driveways are to be designed in general accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking and the relevant sections of AS 2890.1-1993.

 

58.       The driveway opening located at the western end of the Mason Street frontage shall be set back a minimum of 0.5 metres from the western property boundary. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

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

 

60.       To ensure that access is provided over the proposed right of carriageway serving No. 693-693A Anzac Parade, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by the certifying authority, longitudinal cross sections showing satisfactory ramp grades along the extremities and the centreline of the right of carriageway, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. 

 

61.       The applicant shall, at no cost to Council, dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner for road widening purposes on the south-east corner of the development site, (intersection of Mason Street and Anzac Parade).

 

62.       The applicant shall, at no cost to Council, dedicate a 1 metre wide strip of land along the Mason Street site frontage for road widening purposes.

 

63.       Carspace no. 15 shall be signposted and linemarked as a ‘Visitor Parking/Wash Bay’ and carspace no. 14 shall be signposted and linemarked as ‘Commercial/Shop Parking 8:00am – 6:00pm, Visitor Parking at other times’.

 

64.       The turning area on the ground floor shall be clearly marked and signposted to ensure that it is used as turning area and not an additional parking space.

 

65.       Collapsible bollards shall be installed within parking spaces 12 and 13 to prevent visitor/commercial vehicles from parking in the residential spaces

 

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

 

66.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

   In Anzac Parade: 100 mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full Anzac Parade site frontage.

 

   In Mason Street: 30mm above the top of the roll kerb at all points opposite the roll kerb, along the full Mason Street site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0919.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

67.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb in Anzac Parade and the kerb in Mason Street must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

68.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1017.80 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

69.       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.

 

70.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

73.       All habitable and storage areas shall be a minimum of 300 mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (i.e. minimum RL of 26.38 (AHD)) and all car parking spaces on the ground level shall be at least 150mm above the flood level (i.e. RL 26.23 (AHD)). This condition has been imposed to minimise the possibility of floodwater entering the subject development.

 

74.       There shall be no floor coverings, wall coverings or fixtures that may be adversely affected by flooding installed in the section of stair 3 that is constructed below RL 26.38 (AHD).

 

75.       The internal driveway shall be designed with a high point to at least the 1 in 100 year flood level (i.e. minimum RL 26.08 (AHD)) with a floodgate providing a minimum 300mm freeboard. There shall be no windows, vents or other openings to the basement carpark below RL 26.23 (AHD).

 

76.       The floodgates shall be designed by a suitably qualified structural engineer and shall be designed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.   The floodgates shall automatically rise when water levels get to 300mm below the high point in the driveway.

b.   Provision shall be made for manual raising and lowering of the floodgates.

c.   Warning alarms and lights shall be provided to indicated when the floodgates are being raised/lowered.

d.   A back up pumping system (with a suitably sized sump) shall be provided in the basement carpark.

e.   The floodgates shall be constructed with a full back up system for both power supply and raising mechanism.

 

Full details of the proposed floodgates, including a maintenance/service schedule, shall be submitted to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

77.       A positive covenant shall be created on the title of the subject property detailing the maintenance requirements for the floodgates.

 

78.       All site stormwater leaving the site shall be discharged to councils underground drainage system in Mason Street via the existing kerb inlet pit located adjacent to the western property boundary in Mason Street.

 

79.       A reflux valve shall be provided over the outlet pipe from the site to prevent stormwater from Council’s underground drainage system flowing back into the development site.

 

80.       Provision shall be made for all stormwater currently draining to the site to be collected and discharged through the site stormwater system. It is noted that this includes making provision for overland flow currently draining to the rear of 693 Anzac Parade and out to Mason Street through 695 Anzac Parade.

 

81.       The new internal driveway shall, where practicable, be suspended on piers with the area beneath left open to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. In areas where it is not possible to suspend the driveway, the driveway shall be constructed from permeable paving to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground.

 

The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the above requirements.

 

82.       Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)   A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)   A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a  Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)   Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)   The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.    Roof areas

ii.    Paved areas

iii.   Grassed areas

iv.   Garden areas

 

e)   Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)    Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)   The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

h)   All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

83.       On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

84.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

85.       A “restriction as to user and positive covenant” shall be placed on the title of the subject property prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.  Such restriction and positive covenant shall relate to the onsite stormwater detention system and shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.   The "restriction as to user and positive covenant" are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.   The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

This condition is to ensure that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

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

 

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

 

88.       The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

89.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

90.       Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

91.       A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, and approved by an accredited certifier, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the location of the detention basin with finished surface levels, contours at 0.2 metre intervals and volume of storage available.  The outlet pipe from the detention basin to its connection with Council's drainage system, must be indicated on this plan in conjunction with the following information:

 

a)   location

b)   pipe diameter

c)   gradient

d)   pipe material ie PVC or EW etc

e)   orifice size (if applicable)

 

92.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

f.    within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the street drainage system; and

g.   prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

         The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

         The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

         The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

         A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

         A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

         A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

         The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

         A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

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

 

94.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

a)         The car washing bay must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

 

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

 

96.       All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

97.       Should groundwater be present within 2 metres of the base of the basement excavation, the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Should the basement be tanked, adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

98.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

99.       The footings of any structures located adjacent to the council controlled stormwater drainage line located immediately west of the western site boundary must be founded on rock, or; extend below a 30 degrees line taken from the level of the pipe invert at the edge of the easement (angle of repose). The building works must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings and/or piers extend below the "angle of repose" and documentary evidence of compliance is to be submitted to Council, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

100.     The existing council controlled stormwater drainage line that runs parallel to the western boundary of the site shall be fully protected during all excavation and construction works.

 

101.     The applicant shall note that should this pipeline be damaged, Council will remove the damaged pipeline and construct a new 900 mm diameter R.R.R.C.P. with concrete encasement and associated junction pits. All costs associated with removing and constructing the pipeline and associated works shall be met by the applicant.

 

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

 

102.     The residential garbage area shall be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

103.     To facilitate the garbage bins being wheeled to the street for collection, a ramp (rather than stairs) shall be provided at the entrance to the garbage area. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

104.     A separate garbage area shall be provided for the proposed retail/commercial area. The retail/commercial garbage area shall be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 2 x 240 litre bins (1 garbage bin & 1 recycle bin) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

105.     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:

 

106.     Detailed landscape drawings and specifications for all floors of the proposed development that are to contain any landscaping, are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 2 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

h.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

i.          Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

107.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA)  prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

108.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade & Mason Street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $4,000 per street frontage shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Anzac Parade and Mason Street site frontages.

 

109.     To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

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

 

111.     All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

Tree Management

 

112.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 3 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a.         One Melaleuca species (Paperbark) located along the Mason Street property boundary.

b.         Two Pittosporum species (Pittosporum) located along the Mason Street property Boundary.

c.         One Palm (species undetermined) located along the Mason Street property boundary.

d.         One Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree) located along the northern property boundary.

e.         One Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located along the northern property boundary.

f.          One Morus species (Mulberry Tree) located along the rear property boundary.

 

g.         One Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) located along the rear property boundary.

 

113.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $15,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.         The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.         Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

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

 

a)         Part B1                        -     Structural provisions

b)         Part C1                        -     Fire resistance and stability

c)         Clause C2.6                 -     Vertical separation of openings in external walls

d)         Clause C3.2&C3.4      -     Protection of openings in external walls

e)         Part D3                        -     Access for people with disabilities

f)          Part E1                         -     Fire fighting equipment

g)         Part E2                         -     Smoke Hazard Management

h)         Part E3                         -     Lift Installations

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

j)          Part F4                         -     Light and ventilation

k)         Part F5                         -     Sound Transmission and Insulation

           

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

A2.      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A3.      In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVEN HUGHES

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 07/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

11-13 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

13 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1105/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for the Development Application No. 1105/2002 to demolish existing  buildings, regrade land for use as a new car park for the Maroubra Seals Club 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 29 January 2003

2.  A4 reduced plan 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROSIE DINNEN

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

29 January, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1105/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish existing buildings, regrade land for use as a new car park for the Maroubra Seals Club

PROPERTY:

 11-13 Fenton Avenue, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Maroubra Seals Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, Charles Matthews and Ted Seng.

 

The application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and five submissions were received objecting to the proposal.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the aims of the Randwick LEP 1998. The proposed car park would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents and adversely impact upon the streetscape of Fenton Avenue. No supporting evidence in terms of a parking study demonstrating the lack of local parking facilities was submitted with the application to justify the need for the proposed car park.

 

The proposed car park is located in an area that may be subject to flooding.  Council’s engineers have advised that the proposal will require significant amendments as all parking spaces must be raised a minimum of 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level and the carpark suspended on piers to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposed car park will be constructed over a right of way and will potentially block passage of adjoining residencies through this area.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves the demolition of two residential flat buildings, Nos. 11& 13 Fenton Avenue, and the regrading of the land for use as a car park for the Maroubra Seals Club. It is intended that the proposed car park would connect with the existing car park that adjoins the site (located on the corner of Marine Parade and Mons Avenue) and would provide for 27 additional spaces. A one-way system would operate with cars entering the car park from Fenton Avenue and exiting onto Mons Avenue. It is proposed to remove the existing vehicular crossing to No.11 and the existing vehicular crossing in front of No. 13 Fenton Avenue would need to be realigned. The car park would be surfaced with bitumen; garden strips and lighting stands are proposed to the eastern and western boundary. The proposed hours of operation of the car park would be 9.30am until 3am.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Fenton Avenue and is occupied by two, 2 storey flat buildings.  No. 11 Fenton Avenue, is a freestanding brick building with a hipped roof, a driveway to the northern side leads to a rear yard area that is mostly concrete paved. No. 13 is brick built, with a parapet roof to the front of the property and an asymmetrical roof form to the rear. No. 13 Fenton Avenue is attached to the adjacent property No. 15. The rear of the site, eastern boundary, abuts the Maroubra Seals car park. To the east of the site is the commercial area of Maroubra Beach and directly to the south is the Ambulance Station with the Broadarrow and Arthur Byrne Reserves beyond. Fenton Avenue is predominantly characterised by residential flat buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is no relevant recent history relating to the two residential flat buildings. However, there have been recent applications relating to the adjacent Maroubra Seals Club car park:

 

DA 139/00       Modification of existing car park and

                         change of vehicular access location from

                         Marine Parade to Mons Avenue.                    Approved 23rd May 2000

 

DA 272/01       Modify and extend existing car park                Approved 1st June 2001

 

DA 272/01 A    Section 96 application for the deletion

                         of condition 7 and revised car park layout       Approved 13 March 2002

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

J Gabriel, C Kafka, Mrs Bushell, B Campbell – Units 1-4of 9 Fenton Avenue

·   Traffic noise & fumes

·   Hours of use are not clear

·   Noise from late night patrons leaving the club

·   Lighting & security issues

·   Loss of foliage and trees

·   Loss of residential nature of Fenton Avenue

 

V Schembri – 15 Fenton Avenue

·   Increased anti-social behaviour

·   Noise disturbance

·   Right of Way issues

·   Hours of use unclear

·   Sufficient car parking in vicinity

 

G Talbot – 7 Fenton Avenue

·   Noise & pollution from traffic

·   Proposed fencing adequate to provide security and isolation from the noise and lighting

·   Demolition of building will increase the exposure of the surrounding buildings to natural conditions

·   Right of Way issues

·   Proposal described as an interim measure, what are the long term intensions?

 

J Otormin – 3/7 Fenton Avenue

·   Increase in noise and pollution

·   Hours of use unclear

·   Decrease in property value

 

D Silove & J Curtis – 23 Chapman Avenue

·   Intrusion and degradation of a quiet residential street

·   Ample car parking in vicinity of Beach.

·    Noise and pollution concerns

 
Comment

 

The objectors have raised valid concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed car park on the amenity of residents of Fenton Avenue. A car park, serving a late night social venue, is not a compatible use in a residential area, as the hours of operation conflict with the quiet nature of residential area late at night. Concerns have been raised by objectors in terms of the potential nuisance caused from patrons leaving the premises and the possibility of anti-social behaviour. Undoubtedly, there would be noise from patrons leaving the premises, noise and pollution from cars leaving the car park that would be unreasonable and disturb the peace and the amenity of the residents in the locality.

 

Reference is made to the abundance of car parking the vicinity of the Maroubra Seals Club, in particular on Mons Avenue and by Maroubra Beach. It seems unlikely that the number of patrons requiring car parking would regularly exceed the number of car parking spaces in the Maroubra Beach area to justify more car parking in the vicinity.

 

There is an existing right of way that crosses the eastern boundary of the site. No. 15 Fenton Avenue currently benefits from the use of the right of way. The construction of a car park over this right of way would not be acceptable because it will obstruct the passage right of  the adjacent property.

 

With regards to concerns raised about security, the Club intends to extend its existing CCTV system to include the proposed car parking area. The Club states in its letter that they work closely with the police on licensing matters and antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, the Club states that the light poles would be directed within the car parking area to avoid light pollution to the surrounding properties.

 

The proposed hours of operation of the car park is from 9am until 3am, closing when the premises ceases trading each night.

 

There is currently some vegetation to the frontage of No.11 Fenton Avenue. Two planter boxes included in the proposal, one to the Fenton Avenue frontage and the other to the rear of the site.

 

5.2  Support

 

No letters of support were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Drainage Issues

 

The EPCD Department is advised that the subject development site is located in an area that may be subject to flooding A flood study commissioned by Council and undertaken by Willing and Partners has determined the 1 in 100 year flood level in the vicinity of the subject site to be at RL 6.35 (AHD).

 

The submitted plans show the proposed parking areas being generally below this 1 in 100 year flood level.

 

The EPCD Department recommends that prior to any form of development approval being issued, the applicant be requested to submit amended plans showing all parking spaces being raised to a minimum 150 mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (i.e. to RL 6.5 (AHD)).

 

It is further noted that proposal must not adversely affect the flood levels and/or frequency of flooding in the area. This may involve suspending the carpark on piers and/or using permeable paving (or similar) to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department regarding this matter (9399 0919) prior to submitting any amended details.

 

Construction over the right of way

Should consideration be given to approving the proposed carparking area, it is recommend that the EPCD Department obtain legal advice regarding construction over the right of way.

 

The AIS Department does not support the development proposal in its current form. It is recommended that the applicant be requested to submit amended plans addressing the flooding concerns detailed above, prior to any development consent being issued.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not applicable.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

            -           DCP Parking

-           DCP for Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct (subject site abuts the commercial precinct).

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan Parking

 

The minimum dimensions for a car parking space as specified in the DCP is 5.5 in length and 2.5m wide, the proposed car parking spaces satisfy this requirement. The proposed car park would be classified as medium term parking in terms of its duration of usage. The DCP requires an entry width of 6-9m for 27 car parking spaces. The proposed entry width from Fenton Avenue is only 3.6m and therefore does not satisfy the DCP requirement

 

b.    Development Control Plan Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct

 

The subject site is not covered by this DCP but it directly abuts the area defined in the document as the commercial precinct. The main objectives of the DCP are to encourage development to be in harmony with the surrounding area, sympathetic to the street and to protect the amenity of adjoining residential area. It is considered that the proposed car park will undermine the objectives of the DCP as it will detrimentally affect the amenity of the adjoining residential area in terms of late night noise and disturbance. Moreover, the car park will be detrimental to character and appearance of the locality.

 

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  Suitability of the Site

 

In principle, the proposed demolition of the two residential flat buildings would be acceptable, as the properties are not heritage items nor are they within a conservation area or adjacent to any heritage listed properties. Therefore there is no overriding justification to retain the buildings. However, it is the proposed use of the site that is cause for concern. Whilst the Randwick LEP 1998 lists car parks as a permissible use that requires development consent in Residential 2C zones, it the responsibility of Council as the consent authority to consider the merits of any development proposal with regard to the aims of the LEP and the objectives of the 2C zone in the determination of a development application.

 

The purpose of the LEP is to establish development principles for the different zoned areas within the City of Randwick. It is intended to foster development that is appropriate and suitable to both the site and surrounding locality, protecting and enhancing the environment qualities of the city.  It is considered that the development of the two lots as a car park would not be a suitable use for the site, as it is incompatible with the surrounding residential use, in terms of intensity and hours of use. Moreover, the proposed development would be detrimental to character and visual appearance of Fenton Avenue. Therefore it is considered that the proposed development conflicts with the objectives of the LEP.

 

Moreover, the location of a car park in this site would impact upon the wider streetscape of Fenton Avenue, which is characterised by older residential flat buildings, creating a gap in the street’s form and effectively isolating no.15 from the rest of the properties in the street. Furthermore, no. 13 & no. 15 are attached dwellings and the demolition of no.13 would impact upon the integrity of No.15 and would leave the building exposed to natural elements.

 

Indeed, as argued by many of the objectors, there is an abundance of car parking in the vicinity of Maroubra Beach and the Seals Club. When the existing Seals car park adjacent to the club building is full, patrons can use the on-street space on Mons Avenue or use the parking spaces provided by the beach. Moreover, the majority of the Seals Club Patrons would frequent the premise in the evening, when there would be a higher vacancy rate for parking spaces at the beach. The justification for the additional parking, as stated in the letter from the Maroubra Seal dated 6th January, raises concerns that there will soon be parking meters in the vicinity, there are already 4 hour parking restrictions on some parking spaces and the rising popularity of the area due to the new expressway linking Maroubra with western Sydney. It is considered that these reasons for additional parking are not sufficient to warrant additional car parking in the area, given the abundance of existing car parking spaces within walking distance of the premises. Council requires a parking study to be submitted that indicates that consideration has been given to the adequacy of existing parking arrangement in the vicinity, including designated car parks and on-street parking availability, and evidence that other options have been fully explored e.g. possibility of providing underground car parking.

 

Finally, the Assets and Infrastructure department have evidence that the site is located in an area that may be subject to flooding, the 1 in 100 year flood level in the vicinity of the subject site to be at RL 6.35. The proposal would require significant amendments to address the flooding issues and is unacceptable in its current form.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposed car park would be detrimental to the character and appearance of Fenton Avenue and would adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining nearby residents. No evidence has been submitted with the application justifying the need for additional car parking facilities and proving that the existing car parking spaces in the Maroubra Beach area are not sufficient. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

 

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. 1105/2002 to Demolish existing buildings, regrade land for use as a new car park for the Maroubra Seals Club at 11- 13 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed use of the land as a car park would be incompatible with the residential nature of the surrounding area. In terms of its late night usage that could potentially cause noise and disturbance that is to the detriment of the amenity of the residents.

 

2.         The proposed car park at this location would be detrimental to character and visual appearance of Fenton Avenue, that is residential in nature and effectively isolate No. 15 Fenton from the rest of the street.

 

3.         No parking study has been provided to justify the need for additional car parking for the club. Currently there is ample off-street parking provided in the immediate vicinity of the club.

 

4.         The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the Randwick LEP 1998 in that it does not promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of Randwick.

 

5.         The proposed car park is located in within the vicinity of a 1 in 100 year flood level and could potential be subject to flooding and potentially put the public at risk.

 

6.         The proposed car park will obstruct an existing right of way that benefits No. 15 Fenton Avenue.

 

7.         The proposal does not satisfy the aims of the DCP for Maroubra Beach, in that the development will affect the amenity of the adjoining residential area and the use will be detrimental to character and appearance of the locality.

 

8.         The proposed development would establish an undesirable precedent and is not in the public interest.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 29 January 2003

2.  A4 reduced plan

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROSIE DINNEN

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 08/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

35 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1049/2001/GB

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 1049/01 for Section 96 Modification to alter internal layout, size and mix of the dwellings, change some external design elements and satisfy deferred commencement conditions and delete Condition No. 70 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 12 February 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of  PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

12 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1049/2001/GB

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to alter internal layout, size and mix of the dwellings, change some external design elements and satisfy deferred commencement conditions and delete Condition No. 70

PROPERTY:

 35 Dudley Street, COOGEE

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 IPM P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The section 96-modification application is referred to Committee as the original development applications for the site were determined by Council.

 

The original proposal was assessed and determined concurrently with a master plan and three development applications seeking a total redevelopment of the site. The redevelopment of the site included adaptive reuse of the novitiate building, alterations and additions to Mount Dudley sister’s residence and Torrens title land subdivision of the site into two parcels of land.

 

The current section 96 modification aims to address deferred commencement conditions from Development Consent No. 1049/01 for alterations and additions to the Novitiate Building, to modify the internal floor plans and external design elements of the multi-unit housing development.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for alterations to the approved Novitiate building including the following:

 

·    To convert the approved gymnasium and sub-floor area to provide additional living area for apartment 2 and an additional bedroom for apartment 1.

·    Planter boxes proposed to courtyard area to eastern side of site;

·    Juliet balconies approved to the northern elevation to have width reduced;

·    New windows to western internal elevation;

·    New sun shades/privacy screens to eastern elevation;

·    New car parking ventilation louvers to southern elevation and new ventilation exhaust;

·    Delete Condition No. 70 of Development Consent No. 1049/01 relating to on site detention.

 

To satisfy deferred commencement conditions the following amendments or additional information is proposed:

 

·    Swimming pool is to be deleted from the plans.

·    Landscape plan has been submitted as part of this application.

·    Details of the on site detention has been provided as part of this application.

·    Internal car parking layout has been revised to comply with Council’s Parking DCP.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is known as known as ‘Mount Dudley’ and is currently used for religious and residential purposes by the sisters of Our Lady’s Nurses of the Poor (“the Sisters”). The land has an area of 6153m2 with a frontage to Dudley Street of 55.46m, a depth of 100.61m and a rear boundary width of 60.75m. The site is located on the northern side of Dudley St.

 

The site is Zoned 5 – (Special Uses) under the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The site is owned and used by the Sisters Our Lady’s Nurses of the Poor, a Catholic religious order. The existing site includes:

 

-     Mount Dudley, a dwelling house constructed between 1893 and 1906 that sits at the high central part of the site. This building is presently used for administration and has a chapel, shrine and museum and several previous unsympathetic extensions and outbuildings;

 

-     The Nurses (Sister’s) Home, a 2 storey brick building of inter war styling, which adjoins Mount Dudley to the west;

 

-     The Novitiate, a part 2 and part 4 storey brick building built in the early 1960s located at the rear perimeter of the site where it falls steeply, allowing for the provision of underground parking and additional accommodation.

 

-     Several ancillary buildings such as garages and sheds of various forms

 

-     Extensive and significant plantings and landscape features including mature fig and palms trees of amenity and landscape value and two driveways from Dudley Street.

 

The surrounding development is primarily two and three storey multi unit developments. The architectural style is mixed and the streetscape character of Dudley Street and Edgecumbe Ave varied. Adjoining and nearby properties are predominantly zoned residential 2C.

 

To the north is a 1960s three storey multi unit development addressing Berwick Street, to the north-east is a 1990s constructed townhouse development known as Edgecumbe Apartments, to the south east of the site is a detached dwelling house and to the west is an interwar two storey development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Approval was granted to the master plan and three development applications 1048/01, 1049/01 and 1050/01 subject to a deferred commencement and conditions of consent at the Planning and Building Committee meeting of the 12 March 2002.

 

A meeting was held between Council officers and the applicant on the 30 October 2002. At this meeting a number of proposed changes to the approved plans (1049/02) for the novitiate building were raised. It was decided at this meeting that these changes would result in a development substantially the same as that approved and as such could be considered as a Section 96 modification to consent.

 

The application was lodged with Council on the 20 November 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

 

Elaine Haigh

30/4 Edgecumbe Ave

 

Strata Plan 41815

4-8 Edgecumbe Ave

 

Patricia Dwyer

16/4 Edgecumbe Ave

 

Simon Bartlett & Lesley Spicer

11/4-8 Edgecumbe Ave

 

·    Drainage concerns for the Mt Dudley site

 

Comment

 

A detailed and professionally prepared stormwater management plan has been submitted to Council as part of this application, which has been referred to Assets and Infrastructure for comment, appropriate conditions of consent have been provided.

 

·    Inaccurate sight line elevation and concerns for privacy from the proposed balconies

 

Comment

 

It is considered that the sight line elevation is indicative of the conditions between the subject site and neighbouring property to the east (Edgecumbe Apartments). The representation of the site conditions omit the detail of the existing wire fence and retaining wall, which may lead to apparent inaccuracy. It is however considered that the part site plan, which has been prepared from a survey, is accurate and the 13m between the proposed balconies and the bedrooms/balconies of Edgecumbe Apartments will ensure that direct overlooking is reduced. The addition of sunshades and existing mature trees act to further deflect sightlines between the properties.

 

·    Concerns for overdevelopment of the site

 

Comment

 

The proposed development will result in an increase in calculable floor area however this will not increase the envelope or footprint of the development and as such will not impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. No SEPP 1 objection is required as part of a section 96 modification as the SEPP 1 objection provided as part of the original application applies also to the modification.

 

E Cadzow

5/117 Mount Street

 

·    Concern for size of proposed tree to northern boundary

 

Comment

 

The proposed landscape plan has been considered by Council’s Landscape Officers, the proposed tree species and landscape plan are considered acceptable subject to conditions of consent requiring additional detail to be submitted.

 

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

 

The modifications to the development consent for this section 96 application includes the submission of a landscape plan and arborist report which was the requirement of a deferred commencement consent condition. (Note the proposed poll along the eastern property boundary has been deleted from the submission)

 

The Landscape Comments and Landscape conditions are the only amendments to the previous AIS Dept report (saved as – dudley35#2).

 

In specifics :

 

The new landscape plan No (landscape plan number 938LP/01 dated 8/11/02) has been included in Condition No 30.

 

Approval has now been given for the removal of the Brushbox Tree located on the eastern side boundary due to the submitted arborist report. The AIS Dept’s Landscape conditions reflect this (see Condition No 37)

 

6.2       Landscape Comments

 

1.     There are two trees, covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a.     One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) located along the eastern site boundary, towards the northern end of the site. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall and in reasonable health. This tree is an environmental weed within the City of Randwick and given that there are a number of existing trees within the adjoining property to the east, already providing screening, permission should be granted for the removal of this tree subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

b.   One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located along the eastern site boundary, towards the northern end of the site. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall and is described as being in poor health by the consulting Arborist. Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

6.3       Drainage Comments

 

Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

The proposed method of stormwater discharge, (via an existing private drainage easement), has been considered by Council’s Drainage Engineer and is satisfactory.

 

6.4       Traffic Comments

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 10 residential units will be in the range of 40 to 50 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 6 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Dudley Street as a result of this development.

 

Further to our previous memo dated 30 January 2003 it is understood that the S96 application submitted in conjunction with the above site also seeks to have condition 70 deleted from development consent.

 

Condition 70 States:

 

The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

The subject development site slopes towards the rear, prohibiting overland flows being directed out to Council’s kerb and gutter in Dudley Street.

 

There is an inter-allotment drainage easement located along the side of number 4 Edgecumbe Avenue, which collects flows from the rear of the site. It is understood that the easement contains a stormwater line (some 270mm in diameter) which may direct flow from the subject site through to Edgecumbe Avenue, however, the existing profile and vegetation along the easement would not allow overland flows to be contained within the easement.

 

An inspection of the site and surrounding area revealed that it would be very difficult to regrade/formalise the overland flow path through the easement without major works through number 4 Edgecumbe Avenue.

 

It is noted that overland flows from the site currently drain to the rear of the site and primarily spill over into the rear yard of No. 17 Berwick Street or onto the easement.

 

In lieu of designing the onsite detention system to contain flows up to the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 50% (as condition 70 required), the applicant has proposed that onsite detention be provided for the 1 in 100 year storm event only. Under the proposed scheme, the existing pipeline contained within the easement (in conjunction with the detention system), will facilitate all stormwater (up the to 1 in 100 year storm event) being gradually discharged by gravity to Council’s drainage system in Edgecumbe Avenue. This proposal will improve the existing situation on the site.

 

Whilst the easement in it’s current form is unable to contain flows, any future redevelopment of 4 Edgecumbe Avenue, may enable the overland flow path over the easement to be formalised.

 

Given the above, it is considered acceptable for the proposed development to provide OSD for the 1 in 100 year storm event only, provided that any overflow in excess of the 1 in 100 year storm is directed onto the easement.

 

The AIS Department does not object to condition 70 being deleted provided that the following new condition is attached to development consent:

 

The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no formal overland flow path be provided to Council’s kerb and gutter for storms greater than the design storm. All overland flows shall be directed onto the existing easement draining from the rear of the site.

 

6.5  Heritage Issues

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage officer for comment.  The following comments were made:

 

“A Section 96 application has now been received for the development application for adaptive reuse of the Novitiate building for multi-unit housing.  The original application proposed additions to the eastern and western ends of the existing Novitiate building, and in a southerly direction, to provide 10 apartments.  A basement carpark was proposed, accessed off the new access handle.  It was noted that the proposal would increase the bulk, but not the height of the existing building. It was considered that the additions to the southern elevation of the existing building would reduce the separation from “Mount Dudley”, but that the courtyard over the basement carpark will maintain a reasonable distance between the two buildings.  It was considered that the proposed rendered and painted finish to the existing face brick walls would be compatible with the weatherboard walls of “Mount Dudley”.

 

As compared to the original application, the following changes are proposed:

·    Level 1- conversion of the gym and existing sub-floor area to additional apartments, one in the subfloor area and one in the area previously proposed for a gymnasium.

·    Level 1- changes to layout to incorporate fire stairs, garbage storage and bike storage, and provision of steel framed sunshading to east facing balconies.

·    Level 3- changes to internal layout and external openings, and provision of steel framed sunshading to east facing balconies.

·    Level 4- changes to external openings.

 

The proposed changes are predominantly internal and of a minor nature.  The proposed changes will not increase the building in the direction of “Mount Dudley” or significantly alter elevations of the building which face “Mount Dudley”.  It is considered that the proposed Section 96 application will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the buildings on the site.”

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan was received and approved concurrently with the previous development applications. The proposed changes are in accordance with the master plan and accordingly the master plan does not need to be amended.

 

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 5 - Special Uses 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:-

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item of Conservation Area

Yes

The proposed modifications will not have an impact on the Mount Dudley heritage item.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications to the development proposal for the novitiate building are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as that approved by Council.

 

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

The submissions received in relation to the notification for the section 96 application have been given due consideration as part of this assessment.

 

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 Privacy

 

The proposed amendments have sought to improve visual privacy between the subject development’s balconies to the eastern elevation through the use of sunshades which will break the line of sight between the units looking down to the neighbouring property known as Edgecumbe Apartments. In addition the proposed landscape plan shows additional landscaping which will provide a further visual barrier between the two properties.

 

To the northern elevation the amendments seek to reduce the width of Juliet balconies, which will further reduce overlooking to the property to the north, which addresses Berwick St.

 

It is considered that the proposed modifications will improve the level of privacy between the subject site and adjoining properties.

 

10.2 Density

 

The development was approved with an FSR was 0.75:1. The proposed modification will increase the FSR of the novitiate site to 0.83:1, which exceeds the permissible FSR of 0.5:1. As part of the original application a SEPP 1 objection to the floor space ratio development standard was submitted, as part of the determination the objection was considered reasonable and the control varied.

 

It is considered that the increase in floor area is only minimal and will not be read as resulting in additional bulk as the additional area is already contained within the building footprint and envelope. The additional area is taken from the existing sub floor area, which was previously not usable floor area within the proposal. There will be no adverse impact as a result of this increase and there will be no additional units created.

 

10.3 Parking

 

The modification has amended the configuration of the basement parking area ensuring that the development will comply with Development Control Plan Parking.  Council’s DCP-Parking specifies that 1.2 spaces are required per 2 bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit.  The proposal does not constitute an increase in floor space but increases the size of existing units.  Apartment 2 is currently 3 bedroom and will have a larger living area, therefore not requiring any additional car parking. Apartment 1 is enlarged from a two bedroom to three bedroom unit and this would require 0.3 of a car space.  The proposal complies with the DCP for parking.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed section 96 modification to consent is considered to be consistent with the approved development application. The proposed modifications will result in a development that will have an improved impact on the amenity of the residential properties adjoining the subject site and is in accordance with Council’s assessment criteria.

 

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 1049/01 on property 35 Dudley St Coogee in the following manner:

 

·      Amended Condition No. 1 to read:

 

“1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0133 dated 22/10/01 and received by Council on 5/11/01 and as amended by plans 2590-S96-104B, 201B, 202b, 301B, 102B, 103B, 100A, 938LP/01, and any other additional information received with the original application and Section 96 Application received by Council on 20 November 2002.

 

·      Amended Condition No. 70 to read:

 

“70. The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm  event should no formal overland flow path be provided to Council’s kerb and gutter for storms greater than the design storm. All overland flows shall be directed onto the existing easement draining from the rear of the site.”

 

The following conditions to be inserted:

 

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

 

129.     The landscaped areas shown on the landscape plan number 938LP/01 dated 8/11/02 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, a certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer with relevant qualifications in landscape architecture or horticulture. The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations and mature height of proposed planting.

 

h.         Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of an occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1.      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.

 

A2.      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 09/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Upgrade of Patrick Port Botany Container Terminal, Port Botany

 

DATE:

3 February, 2003

FILE NO:

S/0940/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

1.         INTRODUCTION:

 

A development application has been lodged with Planning NSW by Patrick Stevedores Operations Pty. Limited (Patrick) for the upgrade of the existing Patrick container terminal at Port Botany. The proposed development is State Significant Development under Section 17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 1998 (which relates to developments designated under the former Section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). The consent authority for the development application is therefore the Minister for Planning. Planning NSW has referred the application to Council for comments. This report assesses and responds to the application, and will form the basis for Council’s input into the State Significant Development process.

 

The proposal is designated development as it falls within the definition of “shipping facilities” in Schedule 3 – Designated Development of the EPA Regulations 2000. Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.

 

The proposal is also integrated development as it will require approval from the Waterways Authority and the NSW Environment Protection Authority pursuant to Section 91 of the EPA Act 1979

 

It is recommended that Planning NSW be advised that a number of issues should be addressed prior to determination of the application, and appropriate conditions be applied should approval be granted.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

The proposal will involve the following works:

 

§ Improving the efficiency of container transfer within the Patrick terminal to and from trains.

 

§ Modifying the terminal layout to improve access between the container storage area and rail facilities.

 

§ Increasing the area of land leased by Patrick from SPC from 44 ha. to 46.5 ha with the additional land being used to make space available for trucks so that no queuing occurs on adjacent public roads.

 

§ Moving the office and control building to a more appropriate location within the Terminal so that it is no longer located between the storage areas and road/rail transfer areas.

 

§ Installing new state of the art operational equipment including up to 11 new straddle carriers, 7 Rail Mounted Gantries and 3 quay cranes

 

§ Changing the public road access to the public boat ramp located north of Penhryn Road to reduce the potential for conflicts between cars accessing the boat ramp and trucks entering and leaving the terminal

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

The subject site is located on the northern side of Brotherson Dock, south of Penrhyn Road and west of the Inter-Terminal Access Road. The subject site is within the Botany Bay City Council area. The site is irregular in shape and has an existing site area of approximately 44 ha.

The subject site is located within the existing container handling facilities in Port Botany. Immediately to the north of the subject site on the opposite side of Penrhyn Road is the existing Penrhyn Road boat ramp and associated public car park, to the east is the Caltex oil-tanking facility, to the south is Brotherson Dock and to the east is Botany Bay.

 

The subject land is owned by Sydney Ports Corporation and is currently leased by Patrick.

 

4.         SITE/APPLICATION HISTORY

The existing Patrick container terminal was originally designed and constructed during the 1970s on reclaimed land. Operations commenced in 1979 by Australian National Line. The terminal site was then operated by National Terminals from 1992 to 1996. Patrick commenced operations at the site in 1996. The applicant’s EIS states that the terminal has remained largely unchanged since its initial development and hence the need for the upgrade.

 

In a letter dated 22 August 2001, Council indicated to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (now Planning NSW) a number of matters that were required to be addressed in the preparation of the EIS. The matters raised in Council’s letter are addressed in Section 9 below.

5.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENT

5.1       Environmental Health Comments

The Manager Environmental Health and Building advises as follows:

“An EIS for the proposed state significant upgrade to the Patrick Stevedores Operations located at Port Botany has been reviewed and the following items are identified as providing potential issues to land, water or occupiers of Randwick City Council.

 

Noise

 

An acoustic report has been prepared. The NSW EPA is the Appropriate Regulatory Authority (ARA) for the site. The report is to receive the review and concurrence from the NSW EPA, as they are the ARA.

 

The acoustic report is noted and a copy will be kept on Councils file for future reference as necessary (in relation to development at Port Botany)

 

Land Contamination

 

The soil investigation strategies and levels of contamination are expected to be reviewed by the NSW EPA and an accredited Site Auditor.

 

It is expected an Acid Sulphate Soil Management plan is to be developed for the site.

 

Water

 

Quality:  The following are recommended to be incorporated to ensure adequate measures are undertaken to maintain adequate water quality discharged into the stormwater and sewer systems: first flush system for surface water drainage, adequate roof covering, draining and bunding of areas were the washing down and out of containers will occur.

 

Usage:  The proposal anticipates an increase of water usage, which should be addressed in an ecologically sustainable manner. It is recommended that rainwater tanks be installed on the site and water collected be reused on the site for landscaping irrigation and toilet flushing to staff amenities.

 

Energy

 

Levels of energy use are expected to increase.  The use of solar power and suitable incandescent lighting is to be maximised.

 

Hazards and Risks

 

The risks from the proposed development have been assessed against the Planning NSW - Risk Criteria.  It was reported that the risks to the community due to fatality, injury and irritation are acceptable.

 

Conditions are recommended in any approval to be issued:”

5.2       Asset and Infrastructure Comments

The Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

“Traffic Comments

 

The development site is located on the fringe of the Randwick City Council local government area and as such any increase in vehicle movements have the potential to adversely affect the amenity of residents with the City of Randwick.
 
To minimise the potential for adverse traffic impacts within the City of Randwick it is recommended that all heavy vehicle movements into the development site be restricted to the following:
 
   Right turn movements from Foreshore Drive into Penrhyn Road.
 
   Travelling south east along Botany Road across Foreshore Drive and into Penrhyn Road.

 

·    Left turn movement from Botany Road into Penrhyn Road, where the trip originated within port related facilities located immediately east of the development site.

 

To minimise the potential for adverse traffic impacts within the City of Randwick it is recommended that all heavy vehicle movements exiting the site should be limited to the following:

 

·    Left turn into Foreshore Drive from Penrhyn Road.

 

·    Across Foreshore Drive heading north-west along Botany Road.

 

·    Right turn movements into Botany Road from Penrhyn Road, subject to the end destination being within port related facilities located immediately east of the development site.

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority and the City of Botany Bay Council should supply Comments/Conditions relating to the operation/service level of the Foreshore Drive/Botany Road/Penrhyn Road intersection.

 

Landscape Comments

 

The City of Botany Bay Council should provide landscape comments/conditions for this application.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Site stormwater should be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Ports Corporation and the City of Botany Bay Council

6.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

The subject site is located within the City of Botany Bay in land zoned Special Uses 5(a) under the Botany Bay Local Environmental Plan 1995. The primary objective of this zone is to ensure the orderly use of land identified for activities associated with, amongst other uses, Port Botany. The proposal is permissible in the zoning subject to development consent.

 

6.1       State Environmental Planning Policy 11 – Traffic Generating Development

 

SEPP 11 establishes the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) as the traffic management authority to be consulted prior to determination of applications for development listed under Schedule 1 of SEPP No. 11. The proposal is listed in Schedule 1 of the SEPP and accordingly has been referred by Planning NSW to the RTA. 

 

6.2       State Environmental Planning Policy 33 (SEPP 33) – Hazardous and Offensive Development

 

The provisions of SEPP 33 apply to any proposals which fall under the SEPP’s definition of “potentially hazardous industry” or “potentially offensive industry”. The proposed development has been determined to be “potentially hazardous industry”. As such, in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 33, a  Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) has been prepared for the proposed development. The PHA essentially comprises two sections – one identifying potential hazards and the other assessing risk - consistent with the requirements of SEPP 33. The PHA finds that the risks to surrounding public from the proposed re-development on the Patrick terminal site due to fatality, injury and irritation are acceptable. Notwithstanding this, Section 9.1 below indicates that the PHA is based on a number of assumptions about the type and quantity of dangerous goods handled and the hazards associated with handling operations on-site. Apart from noting these assumptions and the methodology underlying the PHA, it is beyond the scope of this report to assess the validity of the hazard and risk assessment. The reliability of the PHA and its outcomes as a consequence of these assumptions and methodology will need to be assessed appropriately by Planning NSW as part of the state significant development assessment process.

 

6.3       State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (SEPP 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 referred to two reports containing results from tests undertaken by two different environmental consultants on the potential contamination in the site. These reports are to be reviewed by NSW EPA and an appointed accredited site auditor. Council’s Environmental Health Officer raises no issues in relation to site contamination given that the increase in site area will be used only for truck queuing space and given that the proposal will need to meet the requirements of SEPP 55 through the assessment of both the NSW EPA and a site auditor.

 

6.5       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 66 – Integrating Land Use and Transport

 

SEPP 66 aims to integrate land use and transport to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, sub-division and street layouts improve access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport; increase the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars; reduce travel demand and distances especially by cars; and support efficient operation of public transport. In particular, SEPP 66 requires the consent authority to consider and assess the proposal in accordance with Clauses 9 and 12 of the SEPP.

 

Clause 9 outlines the planning objectives which the consent authority for the development application is required to consider before granting consent. The objective of the SEPP relevant to the proposal is to “provide for the efficient movement of freight (SEPP No. 66, page 3).

 

Clause 12 outlines the considerations for assessing a study of the traffic and other transport implications of proposal by the consent authority. These include the accessibility of the site by a range of transport modes, and the reasonable ways of minimising travel demand especially by car and maximising alternative modes of transport.

 

The EIS contains a section on transportation impacts which addresses the transport and traffic issues associated with the transport of freight.

7.         POLICY CONTROLS

The proposal is subject to a number of development control plans administered by Botany Bay Council, the application of which will be addressed by the relevant council.

8.         NOTIFICATION

 Public notification has been carried out by the Planning NSW.

9.         ASSESSMENT

9.1       Issues raised in Council’s earlier comments

 

The issues raised by Council during the EIS preparation (letter dated 22 August 2001) are assessed as follows:

 

§ The proposed expansion of the Container Terminal should be considered in the overall context of a masterplan for Port Botany. Port Botany is of state and national significance and should develop in an integrated and holistic manner, and be based on sound strategic directives.

 

No masterplan has been prepared for Port Botany preceding the development application. However, the applicant has indicated in the EIS that appropriate sections in the EIS provide a background to the proposed development in relation to the overall Port Botany complex (namely section 2.4 Strategic Planning for Sydney Ports and section 5.2 Land Use and Planning). These sections examine the operational and physical constraints to the proposed development and refer to the Sydney Ports Corporation’s First PortFuture Port strategy which primarily involves expansion of Port Botany through reclamation of 70 ha of land and establishment of an inland port (intermodal terminal) at Enfield. The EIS states that the proposal is consistent with the First PortFuture Port strategy in that it:

 

§ Assists in expanding rail mode share to 40 per cent.

 

§ Assists in improving traffic flows around Port Botany.

 

§ Assists in improving truck efficiency through improved co-ordination of the trucking industry.

 

§ Assists in providing port facilities for handling the forecast increase in container volumes.

 

Notwithstanding the reference to SPC’s strategic plan for the port, it is considered that the requirement for a Master Plan should be re-emphasised to Planning NSW, Sydney Ports Corporation and the applicant. The masterplan is necessary to provide a comprehensive framework for the development of the port so as to ensure an integrated and holistic approach to the development of the port. In particular, the EIS does not indicate how the proposed development relates physically to the proposed expansion of Port Botany immediately to the north of the Patrick terminal site which will result in the loss a significant portion of existing foreshore area comprising the Penrhyn Road boat ramp that currently allows access to the water as mooted under the SPC’s First Port…Future Port strategy. A master plan for the port would assist in examining the possibility of regional open space being provided to offset the loss of this foreshore area and, by implication, whether or not the proposed increase in the Patrick terminal area is warranted.

 

The lack of a master plan serves to highlight a significant short-coming of the EIS in that it has not addressed the broader issues relating to the capacity and suitability for expansion of Port Botany against other alternative ports in the region such as Newcastle or Wollongong. There needs to be an assessment of the relationship of Port Botany with other existing regional ports and whether the latter can be developed in full or in combination with Port Botany. The proposed development should be set within the context of why and how expansion in Port Botany is justified in the light of such an assessment.

 

§ Incorporation of the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD).

 

The EIS contains individual sections analysing the community (land use and planning, noise, visual, economic, and heritage), and biological and physical (water quality, hydrology and hydrogeology, waste, flora and fauna, and air quality) impacts of the proposed development. At the end of each of these sections, an analysis of the implications of the impacts on ESD principles is undertaken. In particular, the EIS has adequately assessed these community, biological and physical aspects of the proposed development in terms of the ESD principles of precautionary approach, inter-generational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity, and improved valuation pricing and incentive mechanisms as outlined in the following tables of the EIS:

 

Table 5.5          Planning and Landuses

Table 5.12        Noise Impacts

Table 5.13        Visual Impacts

Table 5.16        Economic Impacts

Table 5.17        Heritage Impacts

Table 7.4          Soil Erosion and Contamination Impacts

Table 7.8          Hydrological and Water Impacts

Table 7.12        Water use and Waste water discharge Impacts

Table 7.16        Flora and Fauna Impacts

Table 7.22        Air Quality Impacts

Table 9.6          Energy Use

Table 9.11        Waste Impacts

Table 10.4        Environmental Impacts

 

§ Hazard analyses and risk assessment including a cumulative risk assessment.

 

The EIS has been accompanied by a Preliminary Hazard Analysis in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 33 as the proposal is determined to be a potentially hazardous industry.

 

A cursory review of the PHA indicates that it comprises the following two sections consistent with the requirement of the SEPP:

 

§ Identification of potential hazards involved in the proposal

§ Demonstration of the level of off-site risk

 

While it is not within the scope of this report to evaluate the validity of the outcomes postulated in the PHA in relation to the these two functions (and bearing in mind that Planning NSW will be the authority to undertake this role as part of the state significant assessment process), the following issues are worth noting:

 

§ The PHA is constrained to a degree by the fact that there are a large number of products moved on the Patrick terminal site and thus it is not possible to model all the potential scenarios for all possible incidents. Accordingly, a method has been used by the risk consultant to arbitrarily screen out several potential incidents based on their consequences.

 

§ The PHA has not specifically identified the types and quantities of all dangerous goods on-site given the transient nature of dangerous goods handling on and through the site. Instead the study categorises dangerous goods according to a Sydney Ports Corporation categorisation comprising Red line materials (that is, materials that are most likely to be able to produce off site fatal effects) and Green line materials (all other dangerous goods viewed as being lower hazard flammable liquids, lower hazard reactive materials and lower hazard oxidising agents).

 

§ A number of key modelling assumptions have been made which would be critical to risk results including estimated, rather than specific, package sizes for each dangerous goods classes; estimated likelihood of detonation of a dropped container of explosives being 1 in a thousand incidents; analysing only off-site, and not on-site, fatality risks; and exclusion of flammable liquids in the analysis as they are assumed to have no off-site consequences.

 

Notwithstanding these issues, the PHA provides the following conclusion in relation to risk:

 

“The risks from the proposed redevelopment of the Patrick Port Botany Container Terminal have been assessed by the risks consultants (DNV) against the NSW Department of Planning Risk Criteria. Two assessments have been undertaken, the first based on 2002 trade levels and the second based on forecast increase in trade at the year 2016.

 

The risks to the surrounding public from the proposed re-development on the Patrick Terminal site due to fatality, injury and irritation are acceptable.

 

The conclusion of the assessment are dependent on the estimated current dangerous goods trade through the terminal and the forecast increase in trade up to the year 2016 (6 per cent per annum).”

 

Given the methodology and assumptions underlying the PHA, the onus will be on Planning NSW to ensure that the PHA is acceptable to enable the department/consent authority to make a judgement about the level of risk involved in the proposal, and its acceptability; and allow the department/consent authority to decide if the level of risk exceeds criteria for acceptability or whether the level of risk can be managed so that the proposal is acceptable on hazard grounds including, if necessary, alternatives for the location of the development.

 

§ Detailed transport and traffic assessment. Council would expect all truck related movements to be directed away from residential areas and retained within the state road network of Botany Road and Foreshore Road.

 

A traffic impact study has been provided with the EIS, which reviews existing traffic conditions, predicts future traffic demand, and models the local and regional road network’s ability to accommodate the increased traffic demand resulting from the proposed development. The traffic study is based on predicted trends in container trade at the Patrick and P&O Ports terminal in Port Botany in 2016. Based on the modelling the study predicts that peak hour truck traffic generated by the Patrick terminal would increase from approximately 208 trips in 2001 to 337 trips in 2016 (ie., an additional 130 peak hour truck movements from Patrick from 2001 to 2016). With this scenario, the study states that :

 

“the proposal would result in a small increase in overall traffic generated over background traffic in the long run. Foreshore Road is expected to accommodate the heaviest long-term increase in truck trips as a result of the Patrick upgrade”.

 

This analysis would appear to address Council’s requirement that truck traffic be retained within surrounding state roads and not local streets. However, the traffic study and the EIS do not provide details of measures to prevent truck traffic from encroaching into residential streets, other than to imply that the level of service (LoS) at critical intersections near the Patrick Terminal would generally be adequate to facilitate traffic into Botany Road and Foreshore Road provided the intersection at Botany Road, Foreshore Road and Penryhn Road is upgraded in the future. Accordingly, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services has also recommended that a condition be applied restricting the movement of truck traffic entering and exiting the subject site should approval be granted.

 

Whilst the EIS states that the movement of container by rail is expected to increase from 25 percent to over 40 percent, and that this increase will comprise a shift from road to rail (which is anticipated to occur within the first five years of upgrading to the Patrick terminal) the expected shift will not result in any reduction in truck movements from the terminal but rather an increase in average truck movements per day from 1,211 to 2,146 per day (Table 3.1). In fact, the EIS expects the annual transfer of containers by truck to increase from 352,500 Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) in 2001 to 780,000 TEUs in 2016. As such, the EIS should also identify the measures that will be taken to further maximise rail usage and minimise truck haulage.

 

§ Visual impact assessment of the proposed cranes in relation to the Botany Bay Foreshore area and any residential areas within the visual catchment of the cranes

 

The EIS states that three new quay cranes would be added to the existing six, and would be 105m at full extension and coloured red and yellow similar to the existing quay cranes. There will also be 7 rail mounted gantries proposed each with a maximum height of 16 m. The visual impact of these structures have been assessed from selected vantage points within approximately 1 km of the site. The EIS, in summarising the visual impact of the proposal, states that the addition of three more quay cranes would be unlikely to have a noticeable negative visual impact to the surrounding areas as the existing industrial surrounds and the existing cranes at both the Container Terminal Australia Limited and Patrick Terminals would make the visual impact associated with the proposal low and insignificant. The EIS has not shown any proposed landscaping treatment to alleviate the visual impact of the proposed development. As such. it is considered that further consideration should be given for the treatment of key edges around the Patrick site, entries and exits to soften the visual impact of the proposed development.

 

§ Particulars for water and noise pollution

 

The EIS includes a section on Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Quality which addresses the potential water related impacts of the proposal. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed this section and finds the assessment acceptable subject to a condition requiring the incorporation of measures to maintain adequate water quality discharged into stormwater and sewer systems.

 

The EIS has been accompanied by an acoustic report, which will be reviewed and determined by the NSW EPA who are the Appropriate Regulatory Authority (ARA) for the site. Accordingly, Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommends that a condition be applied requiring a compliance report to be submitted to the ARA within 6 months of an occupation certificate being issued for the proposed development in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations. The officer recommends that a copy of the report should also be sent to Randwick Council for Council’s information.

 

9.2       Additional issues raised

 

·    Identify the economic benefits for industrial areas in Randwick City

 

The EIS does not identify the economic impacts that the proposal would have specifically on adjoining industrial zoned lands. While the national and international economic significance of the proposal have been highlighted in the EIS, the impact of the proposal for local industries in the adjoining industrial areas within Randwick City should also be addressed. Among other things, the EIS should indicate how the uses proposed in the expanded port would establish expected linkages to local industries in adjoining and surrounding areas, and the mechanisms necessary to facilitate economic benefits from the expanded port to adjoining industrial areas.

 

·    Impact of the expanded port on existing port facilities in Randwick

 

The EIS should identify the impact of the expanded Patrick terminal on existing port facilities within the Randwick City Council area in terms of expected linkages, spin offs and economies of scale. The relevance of this relationship to the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Patrick terminal and the selection of Port Botany for future expansion should be addressed. This consideration highlights the need for a master plan for the port.

 

·    Construction Issues

 

The impact of construction on surrounding local land-uses and local residents should be examined in the EIS. Safety measures at construction stage should be detailed.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

The proposed development is State Significant Development under Section 17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 1998 (which relates to developments designated under the former Section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). The consent authority for the development application is therefore the Minister for Planning. Planning NSW has referred the application to Council for comments as part of the State Significant Development assessment process.

The proposal is also designated development as it falls within the definition of “shipping facilities” in Schedule 3 – Designated Development of the EPA Regulations 2000 and an EIS has been prepared for the proposal.

 

In addition, the proposal is integrated development as it will require approval from the Waterways Authority and the NSW Environment Protection Authority pursuant to Section 91 of the EPA Act 1979

 

An assessment of the proposed development indicates that the following issues require further consideration:

 

§ Preparation of a master plan for Port Botany

§ Impact on existing port facilities within Randwick Council

§ Visual impact and landscape treatment

§ Economic impacts of the proposed development

§ Impact of construction

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that Planning NSW be advised that the above listed issues are to be further addressed prior to any determination of the development application, and a number of conditions are recommended should approval be granted.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Planning NSW be advised that Council requests that the following issues be addressed prior to any determination of the development application for the proposed upgrade of the Patrick Port Botany Terminal at Brotherson Dock, Penrhyn Road, Port Botany.

 

1.   Appropriate consideration being given to the preparation of a master plan for Port Botany to provide a comprehensive framework for the development of the port and to ensure an integrated and holistic approach to the development of the port. 

 

2.   Assessment of the proposed development should be considered against the broader issue of the capacity and suitability for expansion of Port Botany in relation to other alternative ports in the region. 

 

3.   Appropriate consideration should be given to the treatment of key edges around the Patrick site, entries and exits by way of landscape treatment to soften the visual impact of the proposed development .

 

4.   Appropriate consideration be given to the economic impacts that the proposal would have specifically on adjoining industrial zoned lands, in particular, the impact of the proposal for local industries in the adjoining industrial areas within Randwick City and how the uses proposed in the expanded port would establish expected linkages to local industries in adjoining and surrounding areas, and the mechanisms necessary to facilitate economic benefits from the expanded port to adjoining industrial areas.

 

5.   Appropriate consideration be given to identify the impact of the expanded Patrick terminal on existing port facilities within the Randwick City Council area in terms of expected linkages, spin offs and economies of scale and the relevance this relationship to the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Patrick terminal and the selection of Port Botany for future expansion.

 

6.   Appropriate consideration be given to the impact of construction on surrounding local land-uses and local residents including safety measures at construction stage.

 

B.         THAT Planning NSW be advised that in the event the application is approved that the following conditions be included in any consent:

 

1.   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.

 

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

 

3.   A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Appropriate Regulatory Authority and Randwick City Council within 6 months of 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.

 

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

 

5.   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.

 

6.   Pollution control devices shall be installed and maintained to ensure there will be no water borne pollutants discharging or are likely to discharge into any natural water course or the storm water or sewerage drainage systems.

 

7.   Suitably sized rainwater tanks being installed on the site for the water to be re-used onsite. Example for toilet flushing and landscaping irrigation.

 

8.   Provision of design and installation for energy efficient lighting and hot water heating by suitable qualified practitioner for the office and amenity buildings on the site. This may include the use of solar power or incandescent censored lighting.

 

9.   To minimise the potential for adverse traffic impacts within the City of Randwick it is recommended that all heavy vehicle movements into the development site be restricted to the following:

 
   Right turn movements from Foreshore Drive into Penryhn Road.
 
   Travelling south east along Botany Road across Foreshore Drive and into Penryhn Road.

 

   Left turn movement from Botany Road into Penryhn Road, where the trip originated within port related facilities located immediately east of the development site.

 

To minimise the potential for adverse traffic impacts within the City of Randwick it is recommended that all heavy vehicle movements exiting the site should be limited to the following:

 

·    Left turn into Foreshore Drive from Penrhyn Road.

 

·    Across Foreshore Drive heading north-west along Botany Road.

 

·    Right turn movements into Botany Road from Penrhyn Road, subject to the end destination being within port related facilities located immediately east of the development site.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Attachment

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 10/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF SUNDAY TRADING FOR 195 - 199 MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA  (MAROUBRA JUNCTION HOTEL)

 

 

DATE:

13 February, 2003

FILE NO:

P/003422

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been made to the Licensing Court of New South Wales, by Robert Ellis Lees (Licensee) for the variation of Sunday trading hours pursuant to s. 25(3) of the Liquor Act 1982, in respect to premises situated at 195 – 199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra known as the Maroubra Junction Hotel.

 

The abovementioned application proposes to vary the Sunday trading hours, from the current 10.00pm closing time, to a midnight close. On all other days the hotel will trade unchanged. The purpose of the application is to give greater flexibility in the operation of the existing restaurant at the premises and to cater for an increased demand from tourists to the area.

 

Currently, the hotel is permitted to trade 24-hours, Monday to Saturday (inclusive) pursuant to the existing liquor licence and development consents, in force at the subject premises.

 

The subject premises are situated on land-zoned 3A (General Business Zone) pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and located within the Maroubra Junction Commercial Precinct.  

 

ISSUES:

 

On the 7 January 2003, Council did file and serve pursuant to s. 46 of the Liquor Act 1982, a Notice of Objection to the grant of the application. The grounds of the objection are that the grant of the application has the potential to disturb the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

 

The matter was the subject of a first mention before the Licensing Court on the 13 January 2003, in which Council officer and Council’s solicitor appeared. Consequently, the Court adjourned the matter for further mention on 3 March 2003, noting that on that occasion the application would be allocated a hearing date and directions would be made with the respect to the filing and serving of evidence. Her Worship, Ms Kok L.M, further noted that Randwick City Council, as objector was to meet on the 25 February 2003, at which time Council would further consider its position in the matter. The mention date of 3 March 2003 was deliberately set to take place after the February Council meeting.

 

On the 20 January 2003, Council notified in excess of two hundred properties in the vicinity of the hotel, requesting written submissions in regard to the proposed application to vary Sunday trading at the subject premises. Submissions in relation to the application were to be forwarded to Council by the 4 February 2003. To date, only one submission has been received by Council. This submission, from the owners of 127 Maroubra Road, Maroubra states that they are disturbed by persons walking past their premises in the early hours of most Saturday and Sunday mornings. However, there is no information in the submission that directly attributes these disturbances to partons of the Maroubra Junction Hotel.

 

A search of Council records has disclosed that there have been no complaints made to Council in regard to the conduct of the premises. In addition, the New South Wales Police Service, Eastern Beaches Licensing has advised that they raise no objection to the grant of the application.

 

In consideration of possible impacts to a future increase in the residential population within the vicinity of the hotel. It must be noted, that Council has approved as deferred commencement (DA/255/02/GG) determined 12 November 2002, the demolition of the existing shopping centre and carpark located at 707 – 745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra and the construction of a new mixed use development comprising ground floor, messanine and part first floor retail/commercial, 551 residential units and associated basement carparking.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In conclusion, the following information is provided to assist Council to determine whether or not, to press the objection to the grant of the application.

 

In this regard, the application to vary Sunday trading, if granted by the Court would permit the premises to trade for an additional 2 hours, extending the current 10.00pm close, to a 12 midnight on Sundays only.

 

The premises are currently permitted to trade 24-hours, Monday to Saturday (inclusive) pursuant to the existing liquor licence and development consents, in force at the subject premises.

 

The premises to which the applications relates, is situated on land-zoned 3A (General Business Zone) pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and located within the Maroubra Junction Commercial Precinct. Furthermore, there are no conditions of development consent in force at the premises, which restrict the hours of operation.

 

Council has notified 204 properties in the vicinity of the premises to which the application relates. In this regard, Council is in receipt of one only objection to the application.

 

A search of Council records has disclosed, no complaint history in respect to the conduct of the premises. As such, there is no prima facie evidence available to Council that the grant of the application will result in the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood being disturbed. 

 

The options available to Council are as follows:

 

1.   Council may determine to press the objection to the grant of the application. However, this would lead to the application being set down for a full Hearing in the Licensing Court, in which Council would be required to adduce evidence to a standard that would satisfy the Court that the grant of the application would result in the frequent undue disturbance to the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood. A failure to adduce such evidence may ultimately result in the grant of the application and in doing so, may expose the awarding of costs against Council.

 

2.   Council may determine to withdraw its objection to the grant of the application on the grounds that, at present, there is little or no evidence that could be adduced in proceedings that would satisfy the Court that the grant of the application would result in the frequent undue disturbance to the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

 

Notwithstanding, should the Court grant the application to vary the Sunday trading hours at the premises an option available to Council to address any future possible concerns in respect to the conduct of the premises, Council and/or local residents may bring a complaint before the Liquor Administration Board pursuant to s. 104 of the Liquor Act 1982.

 

 RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council determines whether or not to proceed with the objection to the grant of the application by Robert Ellis Lees to vary the licensed trading hours from 10.00pm to 12.00 midnight on Sundays only, in respect to premises situated at 195 – 199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, known as the Maroubra Junction Hotel, as detailed in options 1 and 2.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & BUILDING SERVICES

Allan Graham

senior planning & environment compliance officer

 

report author

………………………………

 

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 11/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998: Amendment No. 32 - 15 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1009

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

The Yarra Bay site is no longer suitable for the operation of a material recycling facility and Council has for the past four years been endeavouring to acquire an alternative site in the local area.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

At its meeting held on the 27 th August 2002, Council endorsed the relocation of the recycling facility from Yarra Bay to the former Bunnerong Power Station site and resolved to prepare and exhibit a draft Local Environmental Plan allowing for the additional use of a recycling facility on a portion of the subject site, while retaining the 4B Port zoning.

 

This report recommends that Council endorse the draft LEP, to be forwarded to the Minister for making.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject land is located at 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany at Part Lot 103, DP 805 244. The site is zoned Port Botany 4B and is owned by Sydney Ports Corporation.

 

Characteristics of the current site at Yarra Bay are its close proximity to a sewage pumping station, the heritage-listed Chinese Gardens and the Port Botany cemetery. The site is zoned 6A Public Open Space as a Bicentennial Park and it is intended to rehabilitate the site for future use as a park.

 

The proposed recycling facility will involve collecting green waste from the Randwick, Waverley and Woollahra local government areas and the local tree-trimming contractor. This material is graded and blended into mulch, which is sold at competitive prices.

 

Concrete and building material is also recycled by stockpiling the material and then periodically processing the material into selected grades. The various grades are sold at competitive prices and also used for internal Council activities.

 

COUNCILS INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT LAND:

 

The Best Practice Guideline published by the Department of Urban Affairs & Planning in January 1997 titled “LEP’s and Council Land – Guideline for Council’s using delegated powers to prepare LEP’s involving land that is or was previously owned or controlled by Council” requires Council’s interest in the land to be identified.

 

In 2001, Sydney Ports Corporation advised Council of its intention to acquire the former Bunnerong Power Station site (Lot 103) from Sydney Water. Early in 2002, Sydney Ports made a formal offer to lease a 3-hectare portion of the land to Council for the establishment of a recycling facility. 

 

Council has been negotiating with Sydney Ports for a 20-year lease of the site.

 

 

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OPINION:

 

The draft LEP was referred to the Parliamentary Counsel, as required in the preparation of Local Environmental Plans. The Parliamentary Counsel has given its opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made.

 

 

PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONSULTATION:

 

Under Section 62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council sought comments on the proposed amendment from the following government authorities: Sydney Water Corporation, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Sydney Ports Corporation and Botany Bay City Council.

 

Council received a written response from Botany Bay City Council stating concerns they had regarding the introduction of non port-related uses into an area zoned specifically for that kind of use. Council stated that due to the location, size and shape of this portion of the site, there is currently no demand for port-related uses. The site will retain its Port Botany 4B zoning and be available for port-related uses in the future if required. Prior to re-exhibition a second letter was forwarded to Botany Council and no follow-up response has been received. 

 

One (1) submission was received, from Marika Calfas, Manager of Environmental Planning at Sydney Ports Corporation. Issues raised by the submission are as follows:

 

i.          The use of the nominated portion of land for Council’s recycling facility is an appropriate use and not inconsistent with the long-term strategy for the port.

ii.          It is appropriate that the site retain its current Port zoning (4B), because while there is currently no demand for port related uses on this portion of the site it is expected that there will be demand for the site in the future to accommodate trade growth.

 

The Environmental Protection Authority have raised no objections regarding the overall concept and would be interested in providing written comment at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Development Application stage. 

 

Sydney Water and RTA have not made a written submission and were also contacted by phone, however, both agencies have not responded.

 

 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION:

 

The draft LEP Amendment was exhibited 20th November 2002 to 18th December 2002. The draft LEP amendment was re-exhibited from 11th December 2002 to 29th January 2003 and local residents notified in accordance with s.66 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Best Practice Guideline published by the Department of Urban Affairs & Planning in January 1997 titled “LEPs and Council Land – Guideline for Councils using delegated powers to prepare LEP’s involving land that is or was previously owned or controlled by Council”. This Guideline requires additional information to be provided with the exhibition materials, given Council’s negotiations to lease the Bumborah Point Road site.

 

There were no resident submissions received.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council: -

 

(a)        Endorse the draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 32 retaining the existing Port Botany 4B zoning and allowing the additional use of a recycling facility at 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany, and agree to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for Planning requesting the draft LEP be made.  

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Amendment No. 32.

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVE ROSELAND

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

 

 

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 32)

 

under the

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

 

 

I, the Minister for Planning, make the following local environmental plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. (S02/02152/S69)

 

 

                                                                                                                                   Minister for Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 32)

 

under the

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

 

1          Name of plan             

This plan is Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No. 32).

 

2          Aims of plan

 

This plan aims to allow, with the consent of Randwick City Council, the carrying out of development on the land to which this plan applies for the purpose of a Council recycling facility.

 

3          Land to which this plan applies

 

This plan applies to land in the City of Randwick, being so much of Lot 103, DP 805244, and known as part of No 15 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville, as is shown hatched on the map marked “Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 32)” deposited in the office of Randwick City Council.

 

4          Amendment of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is amended by inserting at the end of Schedule 2, in Columns 1, 2 and 3, respectively, the following words:

 

                       

                        So much of Lot 103,                             Development for the purpose            Nil

                                DP 805244, and known as part           of a Council recycling facility.

                                of Bumborah Point Road,

                                Matraville, as is shown hatched

                                on the map marked

                                “Randwick Local

                                Environmental Plan 1998

                                (Amendment No 32)”.

 

                                                                                                                                    



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 12/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

6 Argyle Crescent, Kingsford (Defence Site, Randwick)

 

 

DATE:

14 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0747/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No.747/02 for establishment of Randwick Environmental Park comprising conservation areas, infrastructure and passive recreation areas (accompanied by a proposed draft plan of management) for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 14 February 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………………….…

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILLI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

14 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0747/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Establishment of Randwick Environmental Park comprising conservation areas, infrastructure and passive recreation areas (accompanied by a proposed draft plan of management)

PROPERTY:

 6 Argyle Crescent, Kingsford (Defence Site, Randwick)

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence, Property Disposal Taskforce

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it involves development of the Defence site at Bundock Street, which is of significant public interest.

 

The application is for the establishment of the Randwick Environmental Park (REP) comprising conservation areas and passive recreation areas with associated infrastructure including pedestrian and cycle paths, BBQs, picnic shelters, park furniture, timber viewing platforms and landscaping.

 

Another development application is currently being assessed by Council for the excavation and removal of materials from the bed of the detention basin within the REP and recontouring of the basin bed (DA No. 0840/2002).

 

The proposal is permissible under the Randwick LEP 1998. The application is also permissible under the provisions of the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 23 which rezones the REP into Zone 7 – Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area. The application is consistent with the provisions of the Draft DCP - Defence Site Randwick and the relevant requirements of the Master Plan for the Defence site, which was adopted on 13 November 2001.

 

No buildings are proposed and as such the proposal will have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views. The proposed REP will integrate well into, and enhance the amenity of, the existing surrounding residential areas.

 

Whilst the remediation of the site is part of Commonwealth Works under the Notice of Intention prepared for the site, Council, as part of the adoption of the Master Plan, required that the proposal be subject to the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 to ensure that the subject site and the overall development precinct is remediated to standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. SEPP 55 requires that a site audit statement must certify that the site is suitable for land uses as identified in the Master Plan and issued by a site auditor accredited by NSW EPA, under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The site audit statement must be unconditional, that is, it must be issued with no conditions requiring ongoing management or monitoring. In the case of asbestos or other contaminants where no adopted standards exists the site is to be remediated to an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government Authority.

 

Accordingly, a condition of deferred commencement will be applied to the proposal should approval be granted requiring the submission of a Site Audit Statement and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and groundwater indicating that the remediated land is at an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by the NSW Department of Health, and the entire site remediated to a recognised health based soil investigation standard suitable for its intended use.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the establishment of the Randwick Environmental Park which will involve the following:

 

§ Bushland regeneration involving the use of seed bank and top-soil, and a weed control program, to ensure preservation and enhancement of native vegetation and communities.

§ Landscape works in passive recreation areas including the former cricket pitch and the area to the south of the detention basin

§ Construction of pedestrian pathways/cycleways

§ Installation of park furniture including BBQ picnic shelters, fencing and interpretive signage

§ Installation of permanent and temporary protective fencing of significant vegetation

§ Construction of a timber bridge over the creek; and construction of timber viewing platforms in various locations overlooking the wetland area.

 

The applicant advises that the REP has two main elements – areas of conservation significance containing threatened species and communities and areas of passive recreation for public use. It is intended that the proposal would establish the REP as a major recreational, educational, environmental and scientific resource for the Randwick community.

 

Access into the REP will be provided via pathways off existing streets specifically, Henning Avenue and Lomandra Place, and new roads to be constructed under the Master Plan.

 

A draft Plan of Management for the Randwick Environmental Park has been submitted with the application. A review panel for the draft Plan of Management was set-up comprising representatives from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, National Parks and Wildlife Service and Council, and a community wetlands expert. Following the review of the draft Plan of Management, the plan has been redrafted and is known as the Randwick Environmental Park - Plan of Management January 2003. It is Council’s intention to have the redrafted plan reviewed once more by the review panel and then publicly exhibited at a future date.

 

Legal advice from Council’s Solicitors advises that currently the subject land is not yet community land as defined under the Local Government Act as the land has not yet been dedicated to Council.  As such, the redrafted Plan of Management cannot yet be put on public exhibition and adopted under the Local Government Act. Nevertheless, the redrafted Plan of Management is consistent with the provisions of the Draft LEP (Amendment 23) which requires the preparation of a Plan of Management for all land zoned Zone 7 – Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area. In addition, a condition will be applied to the proposal should approval be granted requiring that all works identified in the subject development application be undertaken in accordance with the revised Plan of Management. After the review panel and Department of Defence have made their final comments on the redrafted Plan of Management, the plan will be put to Council for endorsement under clause 48(a) of the Draft LEP (Amendment 23).

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located generally to the east of the Defence Land development precinct, which is the land identified in the adopted Master Plan for residential development, parks and streets. This development precinct comprises surplus Defence land contained within the overall Department of Defence site at Bundock Street.

 

The REP has an area of 13.1 ha and is bounded by the Defence Land development precinct to the west and north, existing residential development fronting Elphinstone Road containing predominantly Department of Housing flats to the north-east, the Moverly Green Development to the east, and other land forming part of the overall development precinct to the south.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

The Defence site at Bundock Street has been used for army purposes for a number of decades. In the last 10 years reorganisation of the logistics and supply functions of the Australian Defence Force has led to a significant portion of the Defence land being declared surplus to requirements. A Master Plan was adopted on 13 November 2001 for the portions of the surplus land comprising Lots 11, 14 and 18 in DP 1009660, Lot 11 comprising the proposed Army Oval, and Lots 16 and 17 comprising the Randwick Environmental Park, which in total has an area of approximately 49 ha. Apart from detailing the sub-division and development of land for residential, open space and community facility purposes, the adopted Master Plan also provides for the establishment of the REP.

 

In December 2000, the Department of Defence received authorisation from Environment Australia for Commonwealth Works identified in a Notice of Intention (NoI) issued in relation to these works. The following works were identified in the NoI:

 

§ Remediation of contaminated land and buildings

§ Clearing and removal of vegetation

§ Demolition and removal of buildings

§ Earthworks, recontouring of the site and landscaping

§ Construction of a sporting oval

§ Construction of a community centre

 

The Commonwealth does not require Council’s consent to carry out the NoI work listed above.

 

Draft Amendment No.23 to the Randwick LEP 1998 and Draft DCP - Defence Site Randwick has been prepared and placed on public exhibition from 30 July to 9 September 2002. Under Draft LEP No. 23 the Randwick Environmental Park will be rezoned Zone 7 (Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area) which aims to identify, conserve, enhance and manage land with natural environmental values while allowing for compatible recreation and public utility undertakings. Zone 7 will allow, with consent, development that in the opinion of Council is consistent with the objectives of the zone and is defined as appropriate development in an approved plan of management for the land.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised (for a period of 28 days) in accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The application was also referred to the Moverly Precinct Committee. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1       Objections

 

G. McDonald and F. Harris, PO Box 31, Maroubra (on behalf of the Moverly Precinct Committee)

 

The submission from the Precinct Committee raises issues related directly to the Draft LEP No. 23. Notwithstanding this, issues relevant to the proposed Randwick Environmental Park have been identified and these are as follows:

 

§ DA should not be approved before DLWC, Fisheries and NPWS conduct a site inspection.

 

§ All remediation work must be in accordance with relevant NSW legislation and ensure protection to surrounding residents.

 

§ The Plan of Management must address all requirements under the Local government Act.

 

§ Any proposed development in the REP (Zone 7) must be subject to an 8-part test.

 

§ The wetland should have a 50m buffer and any buffer for the REP should be outside the REP (Zone 7). 

 

§ DA lodged prior to rezoning of the subject land to Zone 7 under the draft LEP for the site.

 

§ Water quality treatment structures should be located outside the REP (Zone 7). 

 

§ Location of recreational facilities, public open spaces and pathways should not adversely affect remnant vegetation.

 

§ The DA denies the existence of endangered flora, in particular ESBS, on the site.

 

§ Proposed soil fill will affect ESBS.

 

§ Plan of management does not address impact on fauna.

 

J. McGirr, 12 Cedar Place, Coogee (on behalf of Randwick Defence Site Protection Group)

 

Objections are identical to those raised by the Moverly Precinct Committee.

 

5.2       Support

 

No submissions in support of the proposed development were received.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Building and Construction Comments

 

Council’s building surveyor advises that no objections are raised in relation to building and construction issues subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

6.2       Environmental Comments

 

Council’s Environmental Health Services advises that no objections are raised in relation to environmental issues subject to deferred commencement conditions to address site remediation should approval be granted. Other standard environmental conditions will also be applied.

 

6.3       Landscape Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services:

 

“The DPCD is requested to impose a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed Plan of Management for the subject development site, (as discussed at a meeting of Council officers on 10/2/2003). The Plan of Management would need to be approved of by Council prior to the commencement of site construction/landscaping works.

 

All costs associated with infrastructure works and works referred to in the Plan of Management are to be met by the applicant.

 

The applicant has proposed a number of park structures, furniture and signage for the development site. All items are required to conform to Council’s street furniture and signage standards and as such appropriate conditions will be required to be imposed.”

 

6.4       Bushland Management Comments

 

 

Background

 

A significant area of bushland and an ephemeral wetland occur within Randwick Environmental Park. The bushland includes two endangered items: the ecological community Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and the species Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis. Both are listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 [NSW] and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [Clth].

 

Issues

 

Without adequate mitigation measures, damage to threatened items may occur as a result of this proposal. The cause of this damage may relate to, but not be limited to: access; earthworks; construction; placement and storage of items and substances; disposal of items and substances, erosion and siltation. The effects may be significant and permanent and may be caused unintentionally.

 

Damage may occur to vegetation, soils and the wetland, including threatened items, throughout REP due to many factors, including, but not limited to:

 

§ construction of the path from Housing Department land to Lomandra St,

§ construction of the eastern viewing platform over the wetland,

§ construction of the bridge over the south-eastern creekline,

§ construction of the public access through the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub linking Banksia St to the Community Facility,

§ the removal of fill from the south-eastern corner adjoining Moverly Green,

§ the installation of temporary and permanent fencing,

§ the removal of temporary and old fencing,

§ planting of indigenous species in the landscaped areas,

§ the clearing of fire breaks along the Moverly Green and Housing Dept boundaries,

§ the removal of concrete and bitumen,

§ the collection of propagation material.

 

Determination of the likely effect on the two threatened items present follows:

 

Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979 [NSW]:

 

Section 5A (the 8 Part Test) of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979, is a test to determine whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened items or their habitats. Two threatened items are present in the proposed Randwick Environmental Park: Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis.

 

1. 8-Part Test for Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub:

 

Part A: “In the case of a threatened species, whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.”

 

Not relevant, Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is an ecological community, not a species.

 

Part B: ”In the case of an endangered population, whethUer the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population is likely to be disrupted such that the viability of the population is likely to be significantly compromised.”

 

Not relevant, Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is an ecological community, not a population.

 

Part C: “In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed.”

 

Considering that Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and its habitat is likely to be modified/degraded due to:

 

§ Over-shadowing due to proposed tree plantings in the northern passive recreation area; and

§ Plantings of possible non-local provenance plant stock of species indigenous to the site;

§ Clearing for a fire break along the Moverley Green/Housing Dept boundary resulting in erosion of topsoil into and from ESBS habitat; and

§ Erosion and damage from the removal of fencing; and

§ Erosion from the area if fill proposed to be removed on the Moverly Green boundary; and

§ Construction of new paths and fencing adjacent to ESBS; and

§ Construction of a new stormwater line and outlet from Banksia St through ESBS to the wetland (deleted as conditions of consent to Stage 1A works (DA0427/2002) to ensure no disturbance to ESBS)

           

Part D: “Whether an area of known habitat is likely to become isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat for a threatened species, population or ecological community.”

 

No areas of known Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub habitat are likely to become isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat.

 

Part E: “Whether critical habitat will be affected.”

 

Not relevant, no critical habitat has been declared for Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub.

 

Part F: “Whether a threatened species, population or ecological community, or their habitats, are adequately represented in conservation reserves (or other similar protected areas) in the region.”

 

According to the Final Determination for Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, this ecological community is not adequately represented in conservation reserves.

 

Part G: “Whether the development or activity proposed is of a class of development or activity that is recognised as a threatening process.”

 

“Clearing of native vegetation” is listed as a key threatening process under the TSC Act. “Urban development”, as is the purpose of the proposed development, is identified in the Final Determination to list this key threatening process as an example of an activity or development which may result in the clearing of native vegetation.

 

If the proposed development, as lodged with Council in XXXX, were not modified, then it would be of a class of development that is recognised as a threatening process as:

 

Clearing of native vegetation (Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub) would occur due to:

 

§ Clearing of a 10m fire break along the Moverly Green Housing Dept boundary

§ Construction of a new stormwater line and outlet from Banksia St through ESBS to the wetland

 

Part H: “Whether any threatened species, population or ecological community is at the limit of its known distribution.”

 

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub is not at the limit of its known distribution at the site the subject of the proposed development.

 

Considering Parts A to H above, in particular Parts C, F and G, it is considered that there would be a significant effect on Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and its habitat due to the proposed development, as lodged with Council, if the proposed works did not include adequate permanent erosion control measures and ensure stringent environmental protection measures were not enacted during construction.

 

2. 8-Part Test for Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis:

 

Part A: “In the case of a threatened species, whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.”

 

The nearest population of the species Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis is 170 metres from the proposed development. This population is unlikely to be placed at risk of extinction due to the proposed development.

 

Part B: ”In the case of an endangered population, whether the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population is likely to be disrupted such that the viability of the population is likely to be significantly compromised.”

 

Not relevant, Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis is species, not a population.

 

Part C: “In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed.”

 

The nearest known habitat of Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis is 170 metres from the proposed development. This habitat is unlikely to be modified or removed.

 

Part D: “Whether an area of known habitat is likely to become isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat for a threatened species, population or ecological community.”

 

No areas of known Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis habitat are likely to become isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat.

 

Part E: “Whether critical habitat will be affected.”

 

Not relevant, no critical habitat has been declared for Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis.

 

Part F: “Whether a threatened species, population or ecological community, or their habitats, are adequately represented in conservation reserves (or other similar protected areas) in the region.”

 

According to the Final Determination for Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis, this species is not adequately represented in conservation reserves.

 

Part G: “Whether the development or activity proposed is of a class of development or activity that is recognised as a threatening process.”

 

The proposed development is not of a class of development that is recognised as a threatening process.”

 

Part H: “Whether any threatened species, population or ecological community is at the limit of its known distribution.”

 

Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis is not at the limit of its known distribution at the site the subject of the Stage 1A, Stage 1B or Community Facility DAs.

 

Considering Parts A to H above, it is considered that there is not likely to be a significant effect on Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis or its habitat due to the proposed development. Therefore the Applicant is not required to submit to Council a Species Impact Statement for Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis.

 

Conclusion

 

Without adequate environmental protection measures during construction and permanent erosion control measures, the proposed development would be likely to cause significant disturbance to, and degradation of, the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, including its vegetation and soils. However, given the conditions of consent, the likelihood and degree of disturbance and degradation is considered adequately mitigated.

 

There is unlikely to be a significant effect on the endangered Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis due to the proposed development. Therefore, the Applicant would not be required to submit to Council a Species Impact Statement for this species.”

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master Plan for residential uses, open space, community facility, streets, and infrastructure in the development precinct was adopted by Council on 13 November 2001 subject to a number of variations and requirements for submission of future development applications. A revised Master Plan incorporating all the required variations was submitted and accepted by Council on 13 May 2002.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Special Uses 5 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent and complies with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

8.2       Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan No. 23

 

The draft Randwick LEP No 23 was prepared and placed on public exhibition from 30 July 2002 to 9 September 2002. The draft LEP establishes appropriate land uses and development controls consistent with the adopted Master Plan. Two new zones for Randwick are proposed in the draft LEP, namely Zone 2D – Residential D Comprehensive Development and Zone 7 – Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area. In addition, certain lands are proposed to be rezoned open space under the Draft LEP. 

 

Under the draft LEP the subject site is proposed to be rezoned 7 - Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Areas. The proposed establishment of the REP will be permissible with Council’s consent under the proposed zoning.

 

8.3       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

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.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the decontamination and remediation works are part of Commonwealth Works approved under the NoI, Council requires that the proposal be subject to the requirements of SEPP 55 to ensure that the subject site and the overall land that is the subject of the Master Plan be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. With regard to asbestos, as no standard exists, Council has required that the site be asbestos free or to be remediated to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government authority. A condition of deferred commencement will be applied to the proposal addressing these issues should approval be granted.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1       Draft Development Control Plan – Defence Site Randwick

 

The Draft DCP – Defence Site Randwick, which has been prepared and placed on public exhibition from 30 July 2002 to 9 September 2002, primarily guides and prescribes built form for developments in the Defence site. No provisions in the Draft DCP are applicable to the proposed REP.

 

9.2       Contaminated Land Policy 1999

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 provides guidelines for dealing with contaminated land within Randwick City Council in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 55. The Policy is made a policy under the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s (now Planning NSW) Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines (August 1998) and SEPP 55. In fact, the provisions of the Policy mirror the requirements and procedures outline in SEPP 55 for considering land contamination issues for development applications, sub-divisions and rezoning requests. Council in acting substantially in accordance with the guidelines contain in the Contaminated Land Policy 1999 when carrying out specified planning functions are taken to have acted in good faith and receive statutory protection under Section 145B and Section 145C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and SEPP 55, Council has required of the applicant:

 

1.   that a site audit be performed by an independent site auditor accredited with the NSW EPA to review the remediation of contamination in land forming the REP

 

2.   the provision of a site audit statement prepared by the site auditor indicating in a clear statement that the land within the REP is suitable for the intended land use.

 

In line with these procedures, Council will apply a deferred commencement condition should approval be granted.

 

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

 

The proposed development is permissible under the existing Special Uses 5 zone in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the proposed Zone 7 - Environmental Protection Natural Heritage Area zoning under Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 23. The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 23.

 

The site will be required to be remediated and validated in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 55 (see Section10.12 below).

 

10.2     Development Control Plans and Policies

 

There are no controls in the Draft DCP – Defence Site Randwick which are applicable to the proposed REP. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is consistent with  the provisions of the Draft DCP.

 

The proposal has been subject to the requirements of Council’s Contaminated Land Policy to ensure that the site is remediated to a level suitable for the intended use.

 

10.3     Master Plan

 

The Master Plan for the subject site was adopted on 13 November 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was received by Council in June 2002. All necessary matters required under the revised Master Plan have been addressed in the current development application.

 

It should be noted that the Master Plan states that the Department of Defence will fund works to establish the Randwick Environmental Park and will make a payment to Council to cover the cost of maintaining the Randwick Environmental Park for a period of 20 years. Council will establish a trust fund for the management and maintenance of the Randwick Environmental Park over the designated 20 year period. A condition in relation to the funding for the establishment, management and maintenance of the Randwick Environmental Park will be applied should approval be granted.

 

10.4     Site Suitability

 

The subject site is identified in the Master Plan adopted by Council on 13 November 2001 for passive recreation and bushland and wetland conservation. The location and layout of the proposed REP is consistent with the subject area shown in the adopted Master Plan. As such, the site is suitable for the proposed use. The subject site also contains threatened species and vegetation of conservation significance, which will be protected and enhanced under the proposed works associated with the establishment of the REP.

 

10.5     Design

 

The REP will contain areas of passive recreation such as walking, exercising and picnicking. These areas comprise the former playing ground to the east and the area to the south of the detention basin. These passive recreation areas will have major plantings (including clusters of trees to provide shading and mass plantings of shrubs and groundcover); BBQ facilities, picnic shelters, benches and garbage bins to enhance the amenity of these areas for the community.

 

A network of paths/cycleways is proposed linking passive recreational areas and providing access to strategically located viewing platforms to the wetland. All paths will be bitumen with hardwood timber edge comprising 350 mm asphaltic concrete over 200mm compacted sub-base. Pedestrian paths will be 2.3m wide and cycle/pedestrian paths will be 3m wide.

 

Council’s Bushland Officer has recommended a number of amendments to the design of the proposal including the construction of a pedestrian ramped bridge over ESBS in the north-western section of the site, changes to the location of fencing and park furniture, and installation of additional paths, interpretive signage and gates. A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring these changes to be incorporated into appropriate amended plans to be submitted to Council for approval.

 

10.6     Impact on adjoining development

 

The proposal is for a use that enhances the amenity of surrounding areas through the provision of open spaces and passive recreational facilities. No buildings are proposed under the proposal. As such, the proposal will not result in any impacts on adjoining existing development in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy and views.

 

10.7     Flora and Fauna

 

The applicant has submitted a flora and fauna report for the Stage 1A site indicating that the REP contains patches of scrubland that satisfy the broad definition of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, which is an endangered ecological community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and is listed as a threatened ecological community under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Flora and Fauna Study recognises that the REP has been designed to avoid impacts on existing ESBS and patches of native plants.

 

In relation to fauna, the report advises that whilst a number of listed migratory species have been recorded on the Defence land at Bundock Street, the REP does not contain an ecologically significant proportion of the population of any listed migratory species, nor does it support an ecologically significant proportion of a population of migratory species.

 

The Flora and Fauna study includes an eight-part test, which has been applied to the proposed development of infrastructure for the REP in relation to endangered communities. The test shows that the development of the proposed facilities for passive recreation and the conservation activities to be undertaken in the REP are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or their habitats, and that a Species Impact Statement is not required. Council’s Bushland Management Section has applied the 8-part test to the endangered items in the REP namely the ESBS and Acacia Terminalis in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979. The test confirms that the proposed development would not have a significant effect on these threatened items subject to the recommended modifications to the design (see Section 10.5 above).

 

10.8     Landscaping/Open Space

 

Landscaping in the proposal will be provided primarily in terms of enhancement to the passive recreation areas through introduction of appropriate tree planting for shade and mass groundcover. Appropriate park furniture, including picnic shelters, benches and BBQs are proposed to be installed within the passive recreation areas. All park furniture and signage will conform to Council’s requirements and will be consistent with the design guidelines in the adopted Master Plan.

 

A timber bridge is proposed to provide access across the creek in the south-east section of the REP. Timber viewing platforms will be provided at strategic locations around the wetland to provide an opportunity for the public to experience the wetland and understand the flora and fauna.

 

10.9     Traffic & Carparking

 

Parking for visitors to the REP will be provided primarily in the form of 90 degree carparking in Musket Street, Banksia Avenue, Lobelia Street and along parts of Mantelet Street. No vehicular access will be allowed into the REP except for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Pathways into the REP will be linked to existing roads external to the Defence land development precinct and to new roads in the development precinct proposed in the adopted Master Plan.

 

10.10   Ecological Sustainable Development

 

The REP will incorporate a number of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles. In line with the Master Plan, the proposal seeks to achieve these principles by :

 

§ Minimising storm-water run-off and reducing nutrients in urban run-off.

§ Encouraging pedestrian and cycle movements through a safe and permeable network of pathways

§ Efficient use of existing urban infrastructure

§ Facilitating direct aquifer recharge

§ Providing pollution control devices at main discharge points to the detention basin

§ Efficiently using surplus under-utilised land in a residential area

§ Preserving and enhancing areas of ecological significance thus contributing to bio-diversity

 

A condition has also been applied requiring the use of pole-mounted solar powered lighting of the public domain.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered appropriate in terms of ESD principles and is consistent with the requirements of the adopted Master Plan and Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Act 1997.

 

10.11   Construction Management Issues

 

A construction management plan will be required to be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of construction certificate for any works for the REP. A condition will be applied accordingly, which will incorporate the list of measures recommended in the applicant’s Flora and Fauna Study.

 

10.12   Site Remediation

 

The adopted Master Plan requires that the subject site (and the overall land comprising the development precinct) be remediated to the maximum standard for residential and other sensitive land uses applicable under the relevant State and Commonwealth legislation and guidelines. In the case of asbestos or other contaminants where no adopted standards exists the site is to be remediated to an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government Authority. A site audit statement must certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan. An independent site auditor accredited by NSW EPA has been appointed to prepare a site audit statement for the site and an appropriate deferred commencement condition will be applied which ensures appropriate sign-off of the site by the auditor to the relevant criteria for open space. The site audit sign-off will also cover groundwater. The site audit statement must be unconditional (that is, to the extent that it must be issued with no conditions requiring ongoing management or monitoring) issued by a site auditor accredited by NSW EPA, under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

 

10.13   Resident Submissions

 

The issues raised in the submissions to the notification process are addressed as follows:

 

§ DA should not be approved before DLWC, Fisheries Department and NPWS conduct a site inspection.

 

DLWC and NPWS have representatives on the review panel for the Plan of Management for the REP. These representatives have previously conducted intensive site inspections as part of their role in the review panel. Fisheries Department has previously been invited to inspect the site and comments from the Department have been sought in relation to the development application for sediment removal from the detention basin (DA No. 0840/2002). The opportunity for Fisheries to inspect the site remains open and can be arranged if Fisheries so requires.

 

§ All remediation work must be in accordance with relevant NSW legislation and ensure protection to surrounding residents.

 

Remediation of the site is being carried out as Commonwealth Works through the Notice of Intention. Nevertheless, Council has set performance requirements and controls, including a deferred commencement condition requiring the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and groundwater stating that the remediated land is at an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by the NSW Department of Health, and the entire site remediated to a recognised health based soil investigation standard suitable for its intended use.

 

§ The Plan of Management must address all requirements under the Local Government Act.

 

The Plan of Management submitted with the subject application has been redrafted by members of the review panel having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act. It is Council’s intention for the redrafted Plan of Management ultimately to be adopted in accordance with the Local Government Act.

 

§ Any proposed development (including remediation activities) in the REP (Zone 7) must be subject to an 8-part test.

 

The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 requires a number of matters to be considered through a process called the eight-part test to determine whether a proposal is likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, endangered population or endangered ecological communities, and whether a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is required. Accordingly, the proposal has been accompanied by a Flora and Fauna Study which applies the eight-part test to the development of the proposed infrastructure for the REP (see Section 10.7 above). Council’s Bushland Management Services has also applied the 8-part test to the proposal. Both the applicant’s and Council’s 8-part test indicate that the proposed works in the REP are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on any threatened species, population or ecological communities listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

§ The wetland should have a 50m buffer and any buffer for the REP should be 20m wide and outside the REP (Zone 7). 

 

A minimum 10m buffer was considered adequate in the Land and Environment Court for this site and in subsequent discussions with DLWC. In practice, the adopted Master Plan indicates that wetland will have variable buffer widths with the minimum 10m provided on the south-west side and more than the minimum 10m wide in other areas. The REP buffer area will be part of Zone 7, thereby giving this area the same protection and management status as the remainder of the natural heritage area comprising the REP. This action is fully supported by the NPWS and DLWC.

 

§ DA should not be lodged prior to rezoning of the subject land to Zone 7 under the draft LEP for the site.

 

The proposal is already permissible under the current Special Uses 5A zoning subject to Council’s consent. Should the proposal be approved, the rezoning of the land to Zone 7 will further support the proposed use in line with more specific and clearer guidelines.

 

§ Water quality treatment structures should be located outside the REP (Zone 7). 

 

Water treatment structures already exist within the zone and play an important function in pre-treating stormwater prior to discharge into the wetland. All new devices will be placed having regard for sensitive vegetation and maintenance accessibility. Council in conditionally approving stage 1A required the relocation of stormwater lines and water treatment devices to a more suitable location away from threatened species.

 

§ Location of recreational facilities, public open spaces and pathways should not adversely affect remnant vegetation.

 

An eight-part test has been applied to the development of the proposed infrastructure for the REP. The test shows that the development of the proposed facilities for passive recreation and the conservation activities to be undertaken in the REP are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities, and that a Species Impact Statement is not required. Council’s Bushland Officer has also applied the 8-part test to the proposal which confirms the minimal likelihood of any adverse effects on the threatened items in the site.

 

§ The DA denies the existence of endangered flora, in particular ESBS, on the site.

 

The existence of endangered flora, in particular ESBS, in the REP has been recognised in the Master Plan through to the development application process. The assessment and determination of earlier development applications for the Defence site, namely the Community Centre development (DA 0426/2002), Stage 1A sub-division (DA No. 0427/2002) and Stage 1B sub-division (DA No. 0428/2002),  have all included measures to protect ESBS in the REP. The revised Plan of Management also identifies ESBS in the site and recommends appropriate management measures for ESBS. Appropriate conditions have been applied to ensure protection of ESBS in the determination of the current development application for the REP.

 

§ Proposed soil fill will affect ESBS.

 

The potential effect of soil fill on ESBS from the construction of Musket Street and part of Banksia Street in the Stage 1A development (approved DA No. 0427/2002) will be mitigated by the requirement for a retaining wall to be constructed.

 

§ Plan of management does not address impact on fauna.

 

The redrafted version of the Plan of Management recognises the impacts of the proposed REP infrastructure on both flora and fauna. Accordingly, appropriate measures for managing these impacts are included in the redraft of the Plan of Management.

 

11.       CONCLUSION:

 

The application is consistent with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 23.The application is also consistent with the provisions of the Draft DCP - Defence Site Randwick and the relevant requirements of the Master Plan for the Defence site which was adopted on 13 November 2001. The application also satisfies all requirements of the adopted Master Plan relating to the REP.

 

The proposal will have minimal, if no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views especially given that no buildings are proposed. The proposal, however, will enhance the amenity of surrounding residential developments as well as the broader regional area of the City of Randwick.

 

Whilst the remediation of the site is to be undertaken as Commonwealth works and does not require consent from Council, Council has required that the REP site be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 55. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered appropriate for approval subject to a deferred commencement consent being granted requiring that the applicant demonstrate remediation of the site to a level suitable for the proposed use through submission of a site audit statement prior to the development consent operating.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0747/2002 for the establishment of the Randwick Environmental Park comprising conservation and passive recreation areas and construction of associated assets and infrastructure at 6 Argyle Crescent, Kingsford subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1.         A Site Audit Statement (SAS) together with a Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) in the format defined by the Contaminated Land Management Regulation 1998.  The site audit statement issued to Council shall be unconditional, in that it requires no further monitoring, on going review or remedial actions, and shall cover both land and groundwater. The site Audit Statement must clearly state, where no standard exists, as with asbestos, that the remediated land is at an asbestos free level or to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed in writing by NSW Department of Health.  The entire site must be remediated to not less than the National Environmental Health Forum’s health based soil investigation level (NEHF E) standard, (which is the remediation standard for open space).

 

The site audit statement shall be developed and prepared in accordance with the following:

 

a)   The proponent shall engage the services of a site auditor holding current accreditation in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

 

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

 

c)   The remediation of the site including ground water must fully comply with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation, Regulations and Standards.

 

d)   The Consultant and Auditor, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns (for example, the potential effects on wildlife) and the protection of ground and surface water.

 

e)   Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

2.         A statement shall be submitted to Council together with relevant testing and justification by an independent and appropriately qualified professional confirming that the site, and in particular the former use of part of the site as an old grenades range, poses no risk from unexploded ordinance and that the land is suitable for its intended land use. The assessment shall have regard for any risk from prescribed (ecological) burns and bush fires in the proposed Randwick Environmental Park. Should the opinion make recommendations to negate risk, all recommendations are to be carried out and certified prior to this consent commencing.

 

3.         Revised Landscape Site Plan – North, Issue E, and Landscape Site Plan – South Issue E, (dated August 2002, received by Council on 5 August 2002) in accordance with the changes shown in red on these plans. 

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulation 1998, or the consent will lapse.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Landscape Site Plan – North, Issue E,  and Landscape Site Plan – South Issue E, dated August 2002, received by Council on 5 August 2002, as amended pursuant to the deferred commencement condition No.3 , the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, any plans specifications report study or information submitted in relation to the deferred commencement conditions and any conditions of approval of any plan specification report or study, as  amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         All works shall be carried out generally in accordance with the redrafted Plan of Management dated January 2003, and any subsequent amendments to the Plan, as adopted by Council.

 

3.         Any beneficial reuse of material onsite is to be monitored and classified by a suitably experienced environmental specialist, together with the site auditor. Such material must be certified by of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) together with a Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) in the format defined by the Contaminated Land Management Regulation 1998 and shall be furnished to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for above ground works or works not directly ancillary to a remediation process. The Consultant and Auditor, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns (for example, the potential effects on wildlife) and the protection of ground and surface water.

 

4.         Hazardous or intractable wastes being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·    New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

·    The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

·    The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001;

·    Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

·    Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

5.         Should any underground tanks be discovered they shall be removed in accordance with:

 

§ Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and

 

§ WorkCover Authority requirements (this requires writing in advance to the Chief Inspector of Dangerous Goods, WorkCover Authority, Locked Bag 10, Clarence Street, Sydney 2000 and complying with conditions imposed).

 

In the event of conflict between AIP Code of Practice and WorkCover requirements the latter shall prevail.

 

6.         Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

7.         Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the site auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘virgin excavated natural material’ is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes 1999’.

 

8.         A Site Health & Safety Plan being prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by the site auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. All works are to be carried out in accordance with this plan. This plan shall include:

       •   hazard identification and control

       •   site security

       •   personal protective equipment

       •   work zones and decontamination procedures

       •   contingency plans and incident reporting

       •   environmental monitoring

 

9.         Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for health/safety

 

10.       The proponent shall appoint a suitably qualified Environmental/Community Liaison Officer, dedicated to the site to ensure strict compliance onsite with all conditions of consent and in particular to ensure all works comply with relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The Officer shall also act as a liaison link, first point of contact with the community to act on any complaints arising. A monthly summary report shall be submitted to Council, detailing any complaints and the rectification actions.

 

11.       A 24 hour complaints hot line shall be set up and maintained at all times, the number of which is to be displayed on signage around the perimeter of the site and notified to the surrounding community by newsletter.

 

12.       The following conditions in respect of indemnity shall be met:

 

            (a)        Prior to the issue of any construction certificate in respect of any works permitted by this development consent, the Applicant must procure the execution and delivery to the Council by the Commonwealth of Australia (‘Commonwealth’) of a Commonwealth Indemnity.

            (b)        In this condition, ‘Commonwealth Indemnity’ means a covenant by deed in the following terms:

            ‘The Commonwealth irrevocably and unconditionally indemnifies Randwick City Council (‘Council’) against all legal liability of any nature which Council may incur for a period of 40 years from 17 September 2002, for or in respect of any death, personal injury, or damage to property, arising from or incurred in connection with any soil or ground water contamination in, of, or on the site of the proposed Randwick Environmental Park or any remediation of any soil or groundwater contamination in, of, or on the site of the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, whether or not the Council knew or should have known about a fact or circumstance that gives rise to a liability under this indemnity.’

 

13.       All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

14.       Prior to the commencement of works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times.  Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

15.       The works shall not give rise to an environmental or public nuisance or, cause any offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

16.       Pole mounted solar powered lighting is to be provided within the public domain of Randwick Environmental Park (‘REP’). In addition to the areas specified in areas P1 and P2 on the plans pole mounted solar powered lights are to be provided over the proposed timber bridge in the south-eastern corner of the REP and also over the proposed timber bridge in the north-western corner of the REP, between lots 16 and 17.

 

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:

 

17.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of 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 Construction Site Management Plan shall also incorporate all the measures listed in Section 7.4, page 18, of the Flora and Fauna Impact Report dated July 2002, and prepared by Kevin Mills and Associates.

 

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 and environmental amenity.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure and to ensure adequate maintenance of the landscaped areas:

21.       Prior to the commencement of site construction works the applicant shall give Council a suitably worded undertaking stating that the applicant will meet the full cost for repairs to any Council infrastructure damaged as a result of works within the development site.

 

22.       Prior to the commencement of site construction works the applicant shall give Council a suitably worded undertaking stating that the applicant will implement and maintain the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

23.       Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a  Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

f)          The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

g)         All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

24.       All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the wetland located in the southern half of the Randwick Environmental Park.

 

25.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

26.       All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for protection of the Randwick Environmental Park:

 

27.       The Applicant shall provide a written report of any breaches of the Randwick Environmental Park Conditions to Council’s Bushland Management Technician by the next business day after any breach has occurred. The report shall be signed and dated and information in the report shall include, but not be limited to:

 

·    The date of the breach;

·    The nature, extent (including in time and area and a map) and degree of the breach;

·    The cause of the breach;

·    All persons involved in the breach, including: full first and last names; contact number/s; organisation/s and reason/s for being present;

·    All witnesses to the breach, including: full first and last names; contact number/s and organisation/s; and

·    All plant, equipment, machinery, vehicles, substances, etc. involved in the breach.

 

28.       If Council becomes aware of a breach of the Randwick Environmental Park Conditions for which such a report has not been provided to Council, then Council may request such a report, which shall then be provided to Council within 24 hours.

 

29.       Council officers shall be allowed access to all parts of the site, including the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, on request.

 

30.       All persons who have received written authorisation to enter the proposed Randwick Environmental Park by the Applicant’s Project Manager shall sign an Access Register. The Access Register shall include the following information for every person each day he or she enters the proposed Randwick Environmental Park:

 

·    full first and last names;

·    organisation;

·    address;

·    contact telephone numbers;

·    signature;

·    date;

·    detailed reason for access;

·    description of all areas accessed, including by vehicles, machinery and plant, using management zone codes in the draft Plan of Management.

 

31.       Written authorisation to enter the site is only to be granted upon completion of the “site induction” described in Condition 30 above.

 

32.       The Access Register shall be available for inspection and reproduction at all times by Council. The applicant shall provide Council with a true and complete copy of the Access Register immediately after transfer/dedication of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council.

 

33.       All personnel employed in relation to the development shall receive a site induction prior to commencement of work, which shall include relevant information regarding the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, including, but not limited to:

 

·    the exact location of the proposed Randwick Environmental Park;

·    the presence of nationally significant and threatened vegetation, a sensitive wetland and other native vegetation within the proposed Randwick Environmental Park;

·    that the proposed Randwick Environmental Park area shall not be entered without written authorisation of the Applicant’s Project Manager;

·    that no disturbance to vegetation or soils shall occur within the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, except as in accordance with these conditions;

·    that no temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, except as in accordance with these conditions;

·    that, in any case, access to, disturbance to vegetation and soils in, and placement or storage of items in the proposed Randwick Environmental Park, where these conditions allow, shall be minimised;

·    that no other foreign matter, including concrete, bitumen, road base, fill, soils, mulch, water, cement wash, chemicals, paint, etc., shall be placed in or allowed to enter the proposed Randwick Environmental Park;

·    the penalties for damaging threatened items and their habitats without authorisation;

·    relevant contact numbers, including the Applicant’s Project Manager;

·    that contravention of any of the above shall be reported immediately to the Applicant’s Project Manager by all persons involved in and witnessing such a contravention.

 

34.       All personnel who have completed this induction shall sign an Induction Register stating that they have completed the induction and that this included all the above information. The Induction Register shall be available for inspection and reproduction at all times by Council.

 

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

 

35.       The landscaped areas shown on Landscape Site Plan – North, plan number L02, Issue E, dated August 2002 and Landscape Site Plan – South, plan number L03, Issue E, dated August 2002 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications and amended pursuant to the deferred commencement Condition No3, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, Council, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

b.         A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size. The applicant is to liaise with Council’s Bushland Management Officer (9399 0683) in regards to suitable plant species.

 

c.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil, mulch and irrigation details, surface finishes, footpath details, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements including lighting to Energy Australia standards, in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

d.         Species selection shall be considered carefully and shall avoid species known to be toxic, poisonous or to cause skin irritations or breathing difficulties.

 

e.         The landscape plan shall include suitable shade trees to be incorporated into the landscape areas.

 

f.          Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

36.       The applicant is required to submit detailed product and installation drawings for all park structures, site furniture and signage. These drawings shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the installation of any park structures, site furniture or signage.

 

In regards to all park structures, site furniture and signage, the applicant shall observe the following:

 

a.         All hardware used in the construction of the decking and viewing platforms shall be stainless steel or hot dip galvanized.

 

b.         All handrails/balustrades shall be constructed with stainless steel twisted wire and comply with BCA Clauses D2.16 “Balustrades and other barriers” and D2.17 “Handrails”.

 

c.         All interpretive, directional, information and regulation signs and panels are required to be in accordance with the “Best Practice Manual for Signs as Remote Supervision Version 2” developed by Statewide. This manual can be down loaded from www.statewide.nsw.gov.au.

 

d.         Litter bins shall be limited to 80litre wheel bins to be housed within a stainless steel or hot dip galvanized enclosure. Bin locations should take into consideration the need to minimize the use of maintenance vehicles on soft surfaced areas.

 

e.         All timber products shall be of good quality treated hardwood, details of which shall be required to be provided on the detailed drawings.

 

f.          All painted surfaces shall be coloured “Brunswick Green” as per Randwick City Council standards.

 

37.       The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the detailed landscape drawings and specifications approved under condition No. 34 of this consent prior to the transfer of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

All costs associated with the landscaping works shall be met by the Department of Defence and completed to the satisfaction of Council. All costs associated with maintaining the landscaping works for a further period of 19 years shall be met by the Department of Defence in accordance with the deed of agreement mentioned in Condition No 70.

 

Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) prior to transfer of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

38.       All proposed infrastructure works within the Randwick Environmental Park, (excluding those works that could be categorised as “Bushland Works”), shall be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to the Randwick Environmental Park being transferred to Council ownership. The “Bushland Works” shall not commence until after the Randwick Environmental Park has been transferred to Council. The Department of Defence shall pay for maintenance works for the bushland areas and for all infrastructure items for a period of 19 years in accordance with the deed of agreement mentioned in Condition No.70. 

 

39.       All weed removal or bush regeneration to be undertaken prior to the transfer of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council shall be carried out in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, Council’s Bushland Management Technician. The applicant shall liaise with the Bushland Management Technician prior to the commencement of the weed removal or bush regeneration works.

 

40.       Temporary protective 1800mm high cyclone wire fencing shall be installed on the boundary of REP and the developable area prior to the commencement of any construction work.  This fencing shall be located on the boundary of the bushland buffer areas in consultation with Council’s Bushland Management Technician.  Silt fencing shall also be installed on the boundary.

 

41.       The applicant shall provide the following infrastructure/items as part of the proposed works:

 

·          A minimum of six, 55L capacity, litter bins shall be provided in various locations on the pedestrian accessways.

 

·          A minimum of four, 240 L capacity litter bins, housed on a concrete pad, shall be provided at the picnic shelters in the northern passive recreation area.

 

·          Four electric BBQs shall be provided, two at each picnic shelter in the centre of the northern passive recreation area.

 

·          Three lockable steel gates for emergency and maintenance vehicles shall be installed at the Banksia and Musket St access, the Henning Ave access and the Lobelia St reversing bay.  Each gate will have a locking system consistent with other Council park gate locking systems. 

 

·          Two water bubblers shall be provided, one at each BBQ in the northern passive recreation area.

 

·          Three taps shall be provided, one at each BBQ in the northern passive recreation area and one in the southern passive recreation area.

 

·          Pole mounted, solar powered lighting shall be installed in the southern passive recreation area, in the northern passive recreation BBQ area and at each of the bridges.

 

42.       All existing concrete, bitumen and other foreign material shall be removed from the Randwick Environmental Park prior to the transfer of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council. The removal works shall be carried out in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, Council’s Bushland Management Technician.

 

43.       The two proposed picnic shelters are to be located towards the centre of the northern passive recreation area. Location and design details for the proposed picnic shelters shall be submitted to Council for approval, and be approved, prior to the commencement of any works associated with the picnic shelters.

 

44.       Regrading works on the southern side of the wetland shall include the removal of the waste materials and shall be performed in consultation with Council’s Bushland Management Technician.

 

45.       The applicant shall consult with Council’s Bushland Management Technician prior to the removal of persistent weed species in the Randwick Environmental Park. Council recommends that Council’s bushland management staff be present at all times when mechanical removal of these species is undertaken.

 

46.       There shall be no planting within the remnant bushland and its buffer areas, such areas shall be identified by Council.

 

47.       Planting of low, erosion-controlling species shall be carried out inside the fence on the southern and western edges of the wetland within the wetland buffer.  No planting shall be carried out adjacent to Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub.  The applicant shall contact Council’s bushland management staff to obtain details on the appropriate species and the supplier/s of plant stock.

 

48.       The Planting Schedule shall not include the following species; Dietes grandiflora, Dietes bicolor, Poa laballardieri ‘Eskdale’, Acacia suaveolens, Acacia ulicifolia, Carpobrotus glaucescens, Darwinia fascicularis, Dianella Rrevoluta, Dichelacne crinita, Eriostemon australasius, Goodenia bellidifolia, Leptospermum arachnoides, Pimilea linifolia. The Planting Schedule may include the following species; Melaleuca nodosa for shrubs to parks and path edge, Dianella congesta for ground covers and path edge, Calytrix tetragona for shrubs to parks and path edge, Leptospermum polygalifolium for shrubs to parks. An amended planting schedule shall be submitted to Council for approval, and be approved, prior to the commencement of site construction works.

 

49.       No topsoil shall be imported into the Randwick Environmental Park in any planting areas.

 

50.       A 2300mm wide concrete footpath shall be constructed running south-east to north-west through the northern passive recreation area. The pathway shall generally follow the desire line from Moverly Green to the park entry at Banksia Street. Trees shall be installed on both sides of this pathway.

 

51.       Consultation with Council’s bushland management staff shall be undertaken prior to the re-location of the decontaminated topsoil. Council’s bushland management staff shall be invited to attend the site to oversee the spreading of the re-located topsoil.

 

52.       The banks of the creek in the south-eastern corner of Randwick Environmental Park shall be stabilised with rock walling sympathetic to the natural appearance of the park. Details shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the commencement of the stabilisation works. Rock filled gabions shall not be used to stabilise the creek banks. All creek stabilisation works shall be designed by a suitably qualified engineer.

 

53.       The existing cyclone wire fencing located east, west and north of the wetland shall be removed by the applicant.

 

54.       All 1200mm high permanent protective fencing, is to be infilled with hinge wire with two top straining wires.

 

55.       All 1200mm high permanent protective fencing shall be located a minimum of 1200mm from any footpaths adjacent to the fencing, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

56.       All fencing shall contain vehicle access gates to each buffer area in accordance with Council’ requirements.

 

57.       All stormwater drainage works within or adjacent to the Randwick Environmental Park, (including the installation of Gross Pollutant Traps), that are associated with Development Applications 428/2002 and 427/2002 shall be in accordance with stormwater plans/specifications approved for these applications.

 

58.       The proposed Gross Pollutant Trap at the corner of Banksia and Hendy Streets shall be located clear of the Randwick Environmental Park.

 

59.       All paths and accessways shall be constructed from concrete to Council’s specification. The applicant shall contact Council’s Development Engineer to obtain Council’s design requirements prior to lodgement of any construction certificate application for the site. The construction certificate application shall include the detailed design and specification for the various pathways/accessways.

 

60.       All 3000mm paths shall be constructed with suitable splayed corners to allow for maintenance vehicle access.

 

61.       The path to Moverly Green from the Randwick Environmental Park shall be 2300mm wide.

 

62.       The paths at the entrances from Henning Ave and the corner of Banksia and Musket Streets shall be widened alongside the vehicle gates to provide a separate pedestrian access point. The applicant shall contact Council’s Development Engineer to discuss Council’s requirements for the pedestrian accessways prior to lodgement of a construction certificate application.

 

63.       A 3000mm wide concrete accessway shall be provided to the eastern Gross Pollutant Trap, immediately north of the straight stretch of path from the Henning Ave access, to allow access for maintenance vehicles. The concrete accessway shall be designed to Council’s specification.

 

64.       Fencing adjacent to viewing platforms shall connect directly to the viewing platform fence and rails to eliminate any access to the wetland.

 

65.       The bridge over the creek in the south east of the wetland shall not have piers located in the creek’s flow path. Design details for the bridge shall be submitted to Council for approval, and be approved, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

66.       The fencing adjacent to the bridges shall connect directly to the bridge railing and balustrading to prevent access to the wetland.

 

67.       A minimum 2300mm wide, timber and steel pedestrian bridge shall be constructed over the bushland and easement in the north west of REP, from the corner of Banksia St and Hendy Ave to the Community Facility. The bridge shall meet the requirements for wheelchair access and shall be at least 2.5 metres high at its highest point. Full design details for the subject bridge shall be submitted for approval with the construction certificate application. The applicant shall contact Council’s Development Engineer to discuss Council’s design requirements for this bridge prior to lodgement/preparation of the construction certificate application.

 

68.       Any proposed interpretive shelter shall contain signs that are for the purpose of identifying the park’s features and conservation values.

 

69.       Six interpretive signs shall be provided for educational purposes on the main walking circuit in locations nominated by Council. Interpretive signage shall include the following features:

 

·          Each sign shall be a minimum of 400mm x 300mm.

·          Each sign shall be angled to allow for easy reading.

·          Each sign shall be located on the walk or canter-levered beyond a viewing platform railing.

·          The sign on the bridge shall be canter-levered beyond the outer railing.

·          The design of the signage shall be consistent with Council’s interpretive signage on the Randwick section of the Coast Walk.

·          The design of each sign shall include a combination of text and illustration, either photographic or drawing

·          Each sign shall include Council’s logo and appropriate framing lines to denote a bush, rather than coastal, reserve.

·          Each sign shall be consistent in the use of headings, fonts etc.

 

70.       Prior to the issue of a construction certificate the Applicant on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia must enter into a deed of agreement with Randwick City Council to give effect to the following:

 

A.  Year One Infrastructure Works

 

i.          All costs associated with the first year infrastructure works to establish the Randwick Environmental Park shall be met by the Applicant to the maximum value of one million dollars ($1m) and those works must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council.

ii.          The Applicant shall prepare a schedule detailing the components of the infrastructure works. This schedule is subject to approval by the Council and if approved shall be annexed to and form part of the deed of agreement referred to in this condition.

 

B.   Maintenance Program

 

i.          Upon completion of the first year infrastructure works and subsequent dedication of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council the Applicant shall pay the Council the lump sum of two and a half million dollars ($2.5m) towards the cost of management and maintenance of the Randwick Environmental Park for a period of nineteen (19) years.

ii.          The Applicant shall prepare a schedule detailing the components of the maintenance program for the nineteen (19) year period following the dedication of the Randwick Environmental Park. This schedule is subject to approval by the Council and if approved shall be annexed to and form part of the deed of agreement referred to in this condition.”

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1.      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILLI

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 13/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DESIGN REVIEW PANEL UNDER STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO.65    

 

 

DATE:

3 February, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4035

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

State Environmental Policy (SEPP) No.65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, was gazetted by the Minister for Planning on 26 July 2002.

 

SEPP No.65 allows the Minister for Planning to establish Design Review Panels, comprising experts in architecture, design and related fields.  They are to advise Councils on development applications for residential flat development, residential flat development proposals, planning policies and controls, and other initiatives for improving the design quality of residential flat development.  It is intended that design review panels may be established for a region or for one or more local government areas.  The panels will operate under procedures established by PlanningNSW in consultation with participating consent authorities.

 

At Council’s meeting of 17 September 2002, a report on SEPP 65 was considered, and it was resolved that “Council support the establishment of a Design Review Panel, pursuant to this Policy, and that a report be furnished to Council on respect to the establishment of this Panel.”

 

The Panel would be consulted on any residential flat building comprising three or more above ground storeys, and containing four or more self contained dwelling units.  Council is currently in receipt of a number of development applications for major sites in Maroubra, Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres.  Major development applications are expected for proposals within the former Prince Henry Hospital site and the Department of Defence site in Bundock Street.  Many of these proposals would benefit from the advice of a Design Review Panel.

 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Waverley Council has similarly resolved to support the initiatives of SEPP 65 and to constitute a Design Review Panel for the Waverley LGA, either singularly for Waverley, or in partnership with neighbouring Councils.

 

Accordingly, officers of Randwick and Waverley Councils have been liaising on the possibility of establishing a joint panel, noting the proximity and similarities in Randwick and Waverley’s coastal and built environments.

 

ISSUES:

 

Role of the Panel

 

The role of the Panel would be to advise Council on development applications, Master Plans, new draft planning policies and controls and other initiatives to improve design quality.  Council would remain the consent authority for any development application.  The Design Review Panel chair shall forward the endorsed minutes of the Design Review panel meeting to the Design Review Panel committee following the meeting.  This advice will be included and considered in the Council officer’s report.  Written advice from the Panel is to be in accordance with a standard format, but advice may also include sketches, drawings or diagrams.

 

Membership of the Panel

 

In relation to membership of panels, SEPP 65 requires that a Design Review Panel is to consist of not more than 5 persons appointed by the Minister.  At least one member of each panel must have an appreciation of community values and design issues for the specific region or area.  Each member must have expertise in any one or more of the following disciplines, namely architecture, urban design, environmental planning or landscape architecture.  It is desirable for Panel members with expertise in architecture to also have experience in the design of residential flat developments.  If requested by a consent authority, a Design Review Panel shall call for additional expert assistance to advise the Panel on a particular proposal.

 

The final selection of Panel members will be made by the Minister for Planning.  SEPP 65 requires that the Minister, before making this decision, consult with the Council or Councils, on the Panel membership. The Minister is also responsible for notification of selected members and consent authorities of appointments.

 

The Urban Design Advisory Service maintains a register of suitable panel members and retains copies of their CVs.  The attached list of recommended Panel members has been compiled, based on this register and discussions with Waverley Council officers, ensuring a broad range of skills and experience for the Panel.  The recommended Panel members have all been contacted and have expressed interest in participating on a Randwick/Waverley panel.  CVs of these members will be available for viewing by Councillors at the Council meeting.

 

SEPP 65 also allows for the Minister to appoint one or more alternate members for a Design Review Panel, if required.  The attached list provides additional potential Panel members also with a range of skills and experience.

 

Meeting procedures

 

The Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) provides Guidelines for SEPP 65 Design Review Panels, which includes sections on Establishment of Panels; Expertise of Design Review Panel members; Management of Design Review Panels; Funding of Design Review panels; Design Review Panel meeting procedures; Accountability and Monitoring.  (See Attachment 2).

 

Meeting procedures will be in accordance with these guidelines.  It is noted that these protocols and procedures have been successfully adopted for Panels which have already been set up , including that operating for Southern Sydney Group Councils, Hurstville, Kogarah and Rockdale.

 

From Randwick and Waverley Council records, both Councils are likely to submit a similar number of development applications to the panel for consideration (approximately 2 per month) and thus monthly meetings of the Design Review Panel would be sufficient for review.  The Panel would also provide comment on Local Environmental Plans, Development Control Plans and Master Plans.  Applicants will be encouraged to refer proposals to the Panel at pre-da and pre-Master Plan stage, to address design issues early in the assessment process.

 

Current situation in Randwick City

 

Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan 2002 includes a requirement that development applications for developments of 30 or more apartments and all student accommodation proposals will be subject to assessment by a Design Review Panel.  Similarly, applications elsewhere in Randwick City, falling under the SEPP 65 criteria for referral to a Panel, which have already been lodged, or are likely to be received in the near future, would benefit from such review and advice.

 

Should the Ministerial decision on the SEPP 65 Panel be delayed therefore, an interim panel, comprising at least 3 of the recommended Panel members, should be established to advise on these current and impending applications.  It is intended that ultimately the SEPP 65 Panel would perform this role.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A detailed investigation of requirements for Design Review Panels has been carried out.  The Guidelines for SEPP 65 Design Review Panels are very thorough.  Considerable research has also been carried out to determine a suitable mix of skills for Panel members.  The recommended list of Panel members are keen to be involved in a Design Review Panel for Randwick and Waverley.  The demonstrated high level of expertise of recommended Panel members will represent a considerable asset to Council’s strategic planning and development assessment process.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.   Agree to write to the Minister for Planning recommending the potential Panel members listed in the Attachment, and request that the Minister appoint a SEPP 65 Design Review Panel for Randwick and Waverley Councils;

 

2.   Endorse  the establishment of an interim panel for Randwick City, pending the Minister’s establishment of the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.Recommended list of Panel members.

 

2.Guidelines for SEPP 65 Design Review Panels.(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LORRAINE SIMPSON

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


Recommended panellists:

 

 

NAME

ORGANISATION

SKILLS BASE

Mr Stephen Davies

City Plan Heritage

Planner, Built Environment Heritage expertise

Mr Paul Gerlach

Bradcorp

Landscape Architect, appreciation of regional/local issues *

Mr Philip Thalis

Hill Thalis Architects and Urban Projects

Architect, Urban Design, Planning expertise, appreciation of regional/local issues *

Mr David Chesterman

Jackson Teece Chesterman Willis

Architect, Urban Design, Planning expertise, appreciation of regional/local issues *

Ms Kerry Clare

Architectus

Architect, Urban Design expertise

 

 

 

Alternates:

 

 

Nicholas Murcutt

Nicholas Murcutt Architect

Architect

David Logan

Godden Mackay Logan

Architect, Heritage expertise, appreciation of regional/local issues *

Sylvija Smits

SA Smits and Associates

Architect, Urban planner

Tempe Macgowen

Tempe Macgowen Assoc Pty Ltd

Landscape Architect, Urban Designer

 

 

*          At least one member of the Panel, in addition to an area of professional design expertise, must have a demonstrated and high level knowledge/understanding of regional/local issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor Matson – Need for Public Meeting over Claremont College Expansion. (D/1145/2002 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council convenes a public meeting in the Lodge Room of the Town Hall to allow greater community consultation over the Development Application for Claremont College at 23 Judge Street, Coogee.

 

11.2     By Councillor Andrews – Parking Spaces in Maroubra Junction. (R/0031/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council as a matter of urgency review all parking spaces in the Maroubra Junction Commercial District with the view of revising timed parking zones. Such review should involve consultation with local businesses by way of survey and further, that a meeting take place with the Maroubra Chamber of Commerce. Further, that a report come back to Council in respect of the progress of the above in one month.

 

11.3     By Councillor Andrews – Proposed Roundabout at Mons Ave & Malabar Road, Maroubra. (R/0537/2002 xr R/0495/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a roundabout be constructed at the intersection of Mons Avenue and Malabar Road, Maroubra. Further that this matter be referred to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

11.4          By Councillor Andrews – Proposed Parking Patrol Officer at Maroubra Junction. (R/0031/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council dedicate at least one full time Parking Patrol Officer between the hours of 9am and 5pm, seven days per week to enforce parking restrictions in the Maroubra Junction Commercial District.

 

11.5          By Councillor Andrews - Proposed Parking Patrol Officer at Maroubra Beach. (98/S/1531 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council dedicate at least one full time Parking Patrol Officer between the hours of 9am and 5pm on weekends and Public Holidays to enforce parking restrictions in the Maroubra Beach Precinct area.

 

11.6          By Councillor Andrews – Use of rooms at Maroubra Beach Pavilion. (98/S/1646 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager explain to the Council why the Council was not notified of a change of use of a Council Asset at the Maroubra Beach Pavilion from a Police Room to a Lifeguards Accommodation noting that Councillor Andrews had made enquiries in September 2002 in respect to use of this room but was advised that “local police still had plans for use of this room”

 

11.7          By Councillor White – Naming of the North Head of Little Bay. (98/S/1730 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council resolves to investigate the naming of the north head of Little Bay as Buchan Point.

 

11.8          By Councillor Procopiadis – Update on Litter Patrol by Council. (98/S/3806 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council call for a report on the effectiveness of the Litter Patrol including options of improving removal of dumped materials.

 

11.9          By Councillor Bastic – Advice on Council’s power to order repair and maintenance on a dilapidated property.  (R/0096/02 xr R/05001/01 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council officers advise Council on powers and authority to order the repair and maintenance of the property on the corner of Bond and Marine Parade which is in a very dilapidated state.

 

11.10   By Councillor Matthews – Directional Sign for St Michael’s Golf Club. (D/0275/2001 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be submitted to Council on the possibility of a directional sign being installed to guide visitors to St Michael’s Golf Club.

 

11.11   By Councillor Matthews – Resurfacing of Boulevard at Malabar.  (R/0716/00 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be submitted to Council regarding the Boulevard at Malabar, detailing where  this road is sitting for resurfacing in the pavement management system.

 

11.12   By Councillor Matthews – Sale of Drainage Reserve in Waterton Avenue, Matraville.  (P/01964 xr P/014790 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be submitted to Council on the possibility of Council selling the drainage reserve between 13 and 15 Waterton Avenue, Matraville to the owner of number 13 Waterton Avenue, Matraville.

 

11.13      By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Speed Humps for Jersey Road, Matraville.  (R/0418/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be submitted to Council regarding speed humps being placed approaching the hill in Jersey Road, Matraville.

 

11.14      By Councillor Matthews – Removal of Trees at Long Bay Jail.  (D/0753/2002 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager, Mr Gordon Messiter (before he retires) submit a report to the Councillors regarding the trees (over 150) that were cut down at Long Bay Jail and what action this Council is taking.

 

11.15      By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Roundabout for Forrest, Macquarie & Dampier Streets, Chifley.  (R/0302/02 xr R/0491/02 xr R/0216/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be submitted to Council on the possibility of a roundabout on the corner of Forrest, Macquarie and Dampier Streets, Chifley.

 

11.16      By Councillor Whitehead – Heritage Protection. (98/S/0207 xr 98/S/0282 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared for Council to outline the processes that are appropriate to protect buildings, which are listed on our Heritage list in RLEP 98 or on a Heritage Council list, while the plans proposed and/or approved for development around the item, are being finalised, and during construction.

 

11.17      By Councillor Whitehead – Application of DCP 16, Kingsford Commercial Centre. (98/S/0912 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That DCP 16 Kingsford Commercial Centre be fully applied to development in that centre as the LEP 98 provides no protection from overdevelopment and this is an irresponsible situation.

 

11.18   By Councillor Whitehead – Public Meeting to discuss 23 Judge Street, Randwick.  (D/1145/2002 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a public meeting be timetabled to enable discussion with the local community regarding proposals to demolish part of Heritage listed 23 Judge Street and extend the remainder, and to use Judge lane as a childrens’ crossing for children moving from one part of Claremont College to the other.

 

11.19      By Councillor Whitehead – Access to site – 2-4 Frances Street, Randwick.  (D/1230/2001 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council use its powers under Section 124 of the Local Government Act to direct the current owners of 2-4 Frances Street to take measurers to restrict access to the site for general safety reasons.

 

11.20      By Councillor Matson – Public Explanation Required for Excess Tree Removals in Bligh Place at the end of Fred Hollows Reserve. (R/0091/03 xr 98/S/1187 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be generated by Council staff and circulated to Councillors and residents of Bligh Place detailing the sequence of events that resulted in the excessive removal of trees and vegetation from the Bligh Place end of Fred Hollows Reserve in February.  Further, that this report come back to the next meeting of Council.

 

11.21      By Councillor Matson – Need to Restrict Car Access to Dunningham Reserve. (98/S/2974 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be brought back to the next Council meeting detailing options and costings for blocking entry to Dunningham Reserve by cars from Major Street, the Major and Arcadia Street intersections, the end of Baden Street and further to the west on Baden Street.

 

11.22      By Councillor Matson – Need to Return to Former Proposals for Traffic Calming in the Dolphin, Judge and St Lukes Streets Area. (R/0238/02 xr R/0423/02 xr R/0704/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That an appropriate sum of money be set aside in the draft budget for street calming measures in the Dolphin, Judge and St Luke Streets region of Coogee.  The exact sum to be determined by Ward Councillors following consultation with Council engineers and local residents.