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 March, 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 MARCH, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY, 2003.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 4TH MARCH, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 12/2003 - HANGING OF BANNER - WAVERLEY COLLEGE ART SHOW - WAIVING OF FEES -

2

 

5.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 13/2003 - THE COOGEE TO BONDI OCEAN SWIM - REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES.

4

 

5.3                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 14/2003 - USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH - SURFING NEW SOUTH WALES - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

6

 

5.4                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 15/2003 - ST NICOLAS ANGLICAN CHURCH - EASTER DAY DAWN SERVICE ON COOGEE BEACH.

8

 

 

6           General Manager's Report

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 06/2003 - REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN LONG BAY GAOL COMPLEX.

10

 


 

7          Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 10/2003 - COOGEE LADIES BATHS (MCIVERS BATHS) - LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND STAGE 1 WORKS.

14

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 11/2003 - GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING SITE - LEASE OPTION.

21

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 05/2003 - INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT.

25

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 06/2003 - SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION - 40 COOGEE BAY ROAD, RANDWICK.

27

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 07/2003 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTION ARISING.

30

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 15/2003 - 6 COBHAM STREET, MAROUBRA.

34

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 16/2003 - 10 BAPAUME PARADE, MATRAVILLE.

59

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 17/2003 - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION FOR EXTENSION OF HOURS OF OPERATION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT NO. 10-12 BREAM STREET, COOGEE.

79

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 18/2003 - 8 - 12 ASCOT STREET, KENSINGTON.

89

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 19/2003 -45 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

137

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 20/2003 - MASTER PLAN FOR 1-81 LITTLE BAY ROAD, LITTLE BAY.

150

 

9.7                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 21/2003 - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO CONSENT FOR 35 DUDLEY ST COOGEE.

207

 

 

10         Petitions


 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Matthews – Amendments to Randwick LEP.

231

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Rental Assistance for Lexington Place Community Centre. 

231

11.3

By Councillor Bastic – Overhead Electrical Wiring at Marine Parade between Undine and Wilson Streets, Lurline Bay

231

11.4

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Pedestrian Safety, Perouse Road and Dudley Street.

231

11.5

By Councillor Whitehead –Community Meeting - 159-171 Anzac Parade/Lorne Avenue, Kensington & 240 – 266 Anzac Parade/101-105 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington.

231

11.6

By Councillor Whitehead – Exhibition Time for Amended Plans for 159-171 Anzac Parade/Lorne Avenue, Kensington & 240 – 266 Anzac Parade/101-105 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington.

231

11.7

By Councillor Greenwood – Opposition to Military Attack on Iraq

232

11.8

By Councillor Greenwood – Ethical Investment. 

232

11.9

By Councillor Greenwood – Fig Trees.

232

11.10

By Councillor Murray Matson – Need for Debate on Place of Public Entertainment License Clovelly Bowling Club. 

232

11.11

By Councillor Greenwood – Rainwater tanks for watering of gardens at Randwick Town Hall

233

 

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


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 12/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

HANGING OF BANNER - WAVERLEY COLLEGE ART SHOW - WAIVING OF FEES.  

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2311

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Ms A Fitzgerald, Committee Member for the Waverley College Art Show, advising that the Committee is currently planning its annual Art and Craft Show to be held over the weekend of 2,3 & 4th May, 2003.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Ms Fitzgerald seeks the waiving of fees for the banner installation and dismantling across Coogee Bay Road and all other associated administrative fees that will enable  Waverley College to financially better meet the costs of staging such an event.

 

Installation and dismantling of banner (21st April-5th May)                      $   450.00

Banner over public roadway fee                                                            $   550.00

Local Approval Application Fee                                                           $   115.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $1,115.00

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Art & Craft Show is a non-profit event and to assist with the event, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event.  The estimated cost involved will be approximately $1,115.00.  Funds associated with the waiving of these fees are available through the Councillors Donations Vote for 2002/03.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council vote $1,115.00 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Councillors’ Bids Vote for 2002/03.

2.         That the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

NIL

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 13/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

THE COOGEE TO BONDI OCEAN SWIM - REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES.

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1318

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr Craig Swan, the organiser of The Coogee to Bondi 600 Paddler Assisted Ocean Swim advising than the Swim is being held on Sunday 30 March, 2003, commencing at Coogee and finishing at Bondi, with approximately 80 participants.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The organiser advises that this event was held last year and was a great success, with the first swimmer completing the course in just under 60 minutes and the last swimmer making the distance in just over 100 minutes.

 

Mr Swan seeks the waiving of fees for the event and all other associated administrative fees that will enable the swim to financially better meet the costs of staging such an event.

 

Application fee             $115.00

Hiring of beach             $  85.20

TOTAL                                    $200.20

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Coogee to Bondi Ocean Swim is a non profit event and to assist with the event, costs be allocated to cover the associates fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event. The estimated cost involved will be approximately $200.20. Funds associated with the waiving of these fees available through the Councillors Donations Vote.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That council vote $200.20 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Councillors’ Bids Vote for 2003.

2.         That the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the swimming event.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 14/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF MAROUBRA BEACH - SURFING NEW SOUTH WALES - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES

 

 

DATE:

19 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1411(4)

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In a letter dated 11 March, 2003, from Surfing NSW, Mr Mark Windon advises that the Surfing New South Wales Annual State Eliminations are to be held on the weekend of 17/18 May, 2003 at Maroubra Beach.

 

ISSUES:

 

As this event is the stepping stone for young up and coming surfers from within our regions to State and National Titles, Mr Mark Windon seeks the waiving of fees for the event on Maroubra Beach which amount to  -

 

Amateur Sports                                                $663.20

Beach usage/Application fee                             $115.00

TOTAL                                                            $778.20

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the event is a non profit event and to assist, costs be allocated to cover the associates fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event. The estimated cost involved will be $778.20. Funds associated with the waiving of these fees available through the Councillors Donations Vote.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council vote $778.20 to cover the fees associated with the event to be held on Maroubra Beach on the weekend of 17/18 May, 2003, and funds be allocated from the Councillors’ Bids Vote for 2003.

2.         That the service organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the New South Wales Annual State Eliminations.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

MAYOR'S MINUTE 15/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

ST NICOLAS ANGLICAN CHURCH - EASTER DAY DAWN SERVICE ON COOGEE BEACH

 

 

DATE:

18 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1318

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Rev Craig Segaert of St Nicolas Anglican Church, Coogee, advising than the Church is organising an Easter Day Dawn service on Coogee Beach on Sunday, 20 April, 2003.

 

ISSUES:

 

Rev Segaert seeks the waiving of fees for the Dawn Service on Coogee Beach which amount to  -

 

Application fee             $115.00

Hiring of beach             $100.50

TOTAL                                    $215.50

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the Service is a non profit event and to assist, costs be allocated to cover the associates fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event. The estimated cost involved will be $215.50. Funds associated with the waiving of these fees available through the Councillors Donations Vote.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council vote $215.50 to cover the fees associated with the service and funds be allocated from the Councillors’ Bids Vote for 2003.

2.         That the service organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the Dawn Service.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 06/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN LONG BAY GAOL COMPLEX.

 

 

DATE:

20 March, 2003

FILE NO:

P/000925   D/0753/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 25 February, 2003, the Council resolved 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 Gaol and what action Council is taking.

 

ISSUES:

 

Background:

 

On 5 June, 2002, a large number of trees were removed from within the Long Bay Correctional facility by contractors acting on behalf of Corrective Services Industries.

 

Subsequent investigations by Council officers established that between 100-150 trees had been removed from within the gaol and that a large percentage of those trees would have been covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

 

Those enquiries also revealed that approval had not been sought nor given by Council for these trees to be removed.

 

As a result of public outrage at the removal of these trees, a meeting between representatives of the Department of Corrective Services, several Randwick City councillors, Council tree management staff and affected nearby residents took place within the gaol on Sunday, 16 June, 2002, where it was established that the Department intended to increase the nursery area within the gaol and that this was the main reason that the trees had been removed.

 

The Department also indicated that it intended to replace the entire perimeter fence around the gaol and that this would have also involved the removal of a number of the subject trees.

At that meeting the Department provided plans for the expanded nursery area and a commitment was given that proposed mounding along both the Bilga Crescent and Calga Street frontages would be completed as soon as possible and that appropriate tree planting along that mounding would also be carried out as soon as practicable.

 

A commitment was also given by the Department to source plant material that would be as close to four metres in height (planted) as possible.

 

Council officers committed Council to mass planting 80-odd Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksias) in the nature strip along both Bilga Crescent and Calga Street and this was undertaken shortly afterwards.

 

Subsequent to that meeting advice was sought by Council from Bowen and Gerathy as to what options might be available for dealing with this matter and information was sought on any appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.

 

Advice that was provided to Council recommended that there were effectively three jurisdictional choices that could be taken in relation to the Department breaching Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

These were:

 

1.   The Local Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction – proceedings to be commenced not later than six months after the offence was alleged to have been committed (not later than December 2002) and possibly resulting in a maximum penalty of $110,000;

 

2.   The Land and Environment Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction – proceedings to be instituted within 12 months after the offence is alleged to have been committed (not later than June 2003) and involving a maximum penalty of $1.1 million; and

 

3.   The Land and Environment Court in its Injunctive Jurisdiction – same conditions and penalties as stipulated in Option 2 above.

 

The barrister who provided this advice was of the view that should Council decide to prosecute the Department (and/or the tree trimming contractor), then Option 3 would be the most appropriate jurisdiction.

 

However, it was recommended that prior to the initiation of any such legal proceedings an attempt be made by Council to enter into a co-operative arrangement with the Department of Corrective Services whereby the affected gaol site would be re-instated within a reasonable and agreed-to timeframe.

 

Subsequent to the receipt of this advice Council’s Tree Management Officer inspected the subject gaol site on 21 October, 2002, and it was evident that the mounding that had been agreed to by the Department was underway. On that same day the Department faxed Council seeking assistance in sourcing a variety of tree species along with cost details.

 

 

At that stage it appeared the Department was fulfilling its commitment to rectifying the removal of the trees and to addressing the concerns of adjacent residents regarding the reparation of effective screening between their properties and the gaol.

 

In view of the work that had been initiated, coupled with the legal advice that had been provided to Council, it was considered appropriate at that time that Council negotiate a remedial solution with the Department of Corrective Services in consultation with the local community.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council officers again inspected the site on 16 December, 2002, and found that the majority of the committed mounding had been undertaken along both the Bilga Crescent and Calga Street frontages.

 

However, even though there had been planting undertaken at that time, there appeared to be some vacillation by the Department in complying with all its committed undertakings.

 

In view of this apparent procrastination, Council’s Tree Management Officer contacted the Department on that same day and requested that they provide in writing a report indicating the scope of works thus far and detailing why committed works had not been completed.

 

He also recommended that should Council not be able to secure in writing a timeframe for the completion of those works, consideration should be given to initiating action in the Land and Environment Court in its Injunctive Jurisdiction so that the court might impose a reasonable timeframe for completion of works.

 

On 17 December, 2002, a facsimile was sent to Council by Steve Thorpe, Operations Development Manager, Corrective Services Industries, advising on why committed works had not been completed and informing Council that a programs report would be provided on a monthly basis as requested.

 

On 22 January, 2003, the Department faxed Council a list of tree/shrub species it proposed to plant on the mounds running along Bilga Crescent and Calga Street. This stock ranged in size between 150-250mm and would have planted at between 750mm and 1.5 metres in height.

 

When advised that this fell well short of the sizes the Department had committed to planting, Council was informed that attempts had been made with a number of nurseries to source larger stock but that these had met with no success. The Department was asked for and provided to Council plant lists from two large Sydney nurseries, which indicated that 3-4 metre specimens of the agreed-to tree species were not available.

 

Council was also informed that the Department would be progressing with the planting project utilising species available and that this planting would commence on the morning of 10 February, 2003.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

An inspection of the site on the morning of 5 March, 2003, revealed that a number of important issues had not been adequately addressed by the Department.

 

Although the majority of the mounding has been mulched, there are still large sections that have not. When pressed previously about this issue, representatives have indicated that this is because of unavailability of acceptable mulch in large quantities (particularly during the summer period).

 

There is a large section on the corner of Bilga Crescent and Calga Street that has boulders exposed and which is neither covered in topsoil nor mulch. Large sections of the mulched areas (particularly along the Calga Street frontage) are now covered in tall weeds and the effect is anything but aesthetic.

 

There has been some planting undertaken but this constitutes no more than approximately 20-30 percent of the possible area that should be planted out.

 

As a result of this apparent lack of committed action by the Department of Corrective Services in rectifying their initial illegal actions, a letter was sent to the Commissioner of Corrective Services on 17 March, 2003, expressing Council’s concerns about the Department’s lack of action in dealing with this matter.

 

That letter demanded that the Department provide Council with a reasonable and immediate response to a request for the provision of a detailed programme of works and that if that response were not forthcoming Council would initiate Class 5 proceedings in the Land and Environment Court.

 

Any such court action would need to be initiated no later than the beginning of June, 2003, and a decision on whether to initiate any such action would need to be made as soon as practicable so that the strongest possible case could be mounted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That should the Department of Corrective Services not immediately provide Council with a detailed programme of works for the vegetative rectification works within the Long Bay Gaol complex that Class 5 legal proceedings be initiated in the Land and Environment Court in its Injunctive Jurisdiction against the Department.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 10/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE LADIES BATHS (MCIVERS BATHS) - LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND STAGE 1 WORKS

 

 

DATE:

18 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1032

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 26 November 2002 the Council resolved to -

 

(a) the Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan be exhibited at the baths for public comment.

 

(b) subject to the receipt of submissions, Council adopt the Randwick Coogee Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan (Att 1) and Stage 1 works drawing (Att 2) as the guiding documents for capital works improvements to the Baths.

 

(c) Council provide an amount of $ 85 000 in the 2002/2003 budget to complete the Stage 1 priority landscape works and these be funded from Councillors Requested Works (Bids) Vote.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

In response to the above resolutions the Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan and Stage 1 Works Drawing were exhibited at the Baths for over 5 weeks in Dec 02/January 2003. Further to this Randwick Amateur Swimming Club Committee members met with a number of the patrons to discuss the proposals.

 

In total forty-nine submissions were received from the public in response to the exhibition. Summaries of these submissions are included in Attachment 3.

 

The comments received were evaluated by the Council Officers to assess the need to vary the Plan. The vast majority of the comments received were very positive and mainly expressed a concern that the Baths is not substantially changed and that we take into account the vegetation surrounding the Baths is habitat for bird life. Council Officers met with Ladies Committee to discuss the submissions, finalise the scope of Stage 1 works and outline the process for the undertaking of the construction works.  From the comments received it is agreed with the Committee that none of the submissions raised significant issues relevant to the content of the Master Plan or Stage1 Works. Therefore the documents should be adopted as the guiding documents for the Baths in their present form.

 

The Stage1 works, that are currently funded include:

 

·    Extension of existing grass terraces

·    Construction of a drainage system to minimise water seepage across the site

·    Construction of new western entry steps into the pool for safer pool access

·    Planting of local species and shade trees

·    Increase in wall height of nude sunbaking area to minimize external viewing into the area

·    Improvements to safety fencing

 

As discussed with the Committee the stages for the completion of the construction works are as follows:

 

·    Landscape design development and documentation to be completed by Landscape Consultant- completed

·    Notification of Dept of Land and Water Conservation to lodge DA, submission of Development Application – underway

·    Development Application assessment and approval

·    Finalisation of Tender Documentation

·    Advertising and provision of Tender documents

·    Tender Assessment

·    Report to Council recommending preferred Tenderer

·    Tender Award

·    Construction Phase

 

 

 

The cost estimate for completion of Stage 1 works is $ 85 000, this is currently funded under Council’s 2002/03 budget. It is intended that these works will be undertaken in the 2003 winter season.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That in response to the positive public comment that Council adopt the Randwick Coogee Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan (Att 2) and Stage 1 works drawing (Att 3) as the guiding documents for capital works improvements to the Baths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1 - A3 Copy of the Master Plan - under separate cover

Attachment 2 - A3 Copy of Stage 1 Works - Under separate cover

Attachment 3- Community Responses to Exhibition of Landscape Master Plan and Stage 1 Works Drawing.    

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICER

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 3 – COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO EXHIBITION OF LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND STAGE 1 WORKS DRAWING.

 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

The following summarises the community responses arising from the exhibited plans:

 

·      Vast majority of respondents supportive of exhibited improvements to Baths

·      Preference for pool to remain open during construction

·      Strong desire to retain existing character

·      Bench Seating – increase capacity, view ocean

·      Outdoor Shower – Retain in present form 

·      Strong desire to retain Lantana – habitat for Blue Wren

·      Desire for shade trees

·      Preference for Cyclone fencing over panel fencing

·      Supports improvements to drainage

·      Provide suitable signage

·      More hooks along west side of pool

·      Many respondents wanted to keep lantana as habitat

·      Retain Outdoor shower in current form particularly solar panel

·   Concern that appropriate approval processes is followed particularly in response to environmental impacts

 

RESPONDENTS

 MAJOR COMMENTS

1.   Julie Podmore

 

·      Supports proposals

·      Request for construction period to be sympathetic to winter swimmers

2.   Deborah Kneeshaw

 

·      Preserve present atmosphere

·      Provide more shade from native trees

·      Suggest more regular patrolling of premises at night

·      Outlines problem with litter, and suggest bins with lids

·      Open new work with exhibition of paintings by Users

3.   Deborah Kneeshaw

 

4.   Susan Lundy

 

 

 

 

5.   Jean Gilson

 

 

·      Retain original character, minimize changes with the exception to increase shaded grassy terraces, improve safety of stairs to the pool and improve drainage.

·      Bench Seating – Increase capacity if possible, with view towards the ocean

·      Concrete Paths – Minimise amount of concrete paths.

·      Outdoor Change Rooms – Install roofs on the two outdoor change rooms with doors facing the ocean to capitalize on view and sun.

·      Outdoor Shower – Retain. Do not plant shrubs next to it as swimmers seat against the corrugated wall as a solar panel.

·      Maintain the habitat – Follow environmentally sound process to maintain the habitat.

·      Shade Trees- Plant fast growing and easy to maintain shrubs and trees to provide shade around the terrace space.

·      Fences – use cyclone fencing and shrubs to provide boundary

·      Grass Terrace – maximise terrace space with shade

·      Signage – Provide suitable signage

·      Grate to pipe drainage- Minimize rubbish be washed down to the pool.

6.   Jenny Shaw

 

·      Seating – more for elderly patrons

·      New Outdoor Change rooms – require roofs

·      Extg Colorbond Fence  - Unsafe

·      Retain extg ambience

7.   Heather Radi

 

·      Retain natural environment - Do not remove lantana as habitat for birds

·      Do not close in construction phase

 

RESPONDENTS

 MAJOR COMMENTS

8.   Di Quick

 

·      Provide bench seating towards the ocean

·      New Outdoor Change Rooms – should not block views from grass terraces

·      New fence – retain existing vegetation instead

·      Shade trees – Do not obstruct views

·      Bottom platform of stairs provides shelter in the wet.

·      More hooks along west side of the pool rock face

9.   Gaziella Obeid

·      Retain lantana as habitat for blue wren

·      Keep corrugated iron on outdoor shower

·      A recycle wheelie bin at front entrance

·      Provide signs

10.  H.G. Grunseit

 

 

11.  P. Grunseit

 

·      Keep existing character

·      Solve drainage problem and stop rubbish going into pool

·      Improve safety of pool entry steps. Repair concrete paths and platforms

·      Outdoor change rooms need upgrading

·      Retain outdoor shower

·      Extra benches that face ocean

·      Plant native, eradicate lantana

12.  Rona Wade

 

·      Generally very supportive

·      Boundary should not need to be fence. Lantana impedes intruders

·      Strong desire to retain lantana as habitat for blue wren

13.  Susan Tooth

 

·      Low key nature of the Baths

·      Support improvements to drainage and native planting

·      No clearing of Banksia

·      No clearing of lantana

·      Prefer cyclone fencing

·      Less emphasis in accommodating sunbake

·      Do not close during construction

14.  Anonymous

·      Support proposals

·      Suggest $2 entry fee

15.  Wendy Freeman

 

·      No more fencing

·      Bush regeneration

·      More shade trees

·      Retain Outdoor shower in current form particularly solar panel

·      Continued access during construction

16.  Anonymous

·      Retain grass

·      Relocate dressing sheds

17.  Anne Coffey

·      Supports plan

·      More bench seating facing view

18.  E Fleming

·      Hand railing needed along south wall at bottom steps

19.  Anonymous

·      Supports changes to stairs

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      Agrees making two sides of sunbaking area higher

20.  Anonymous

·      Need more litter bins

21.  Dapne Ryan

·      Bins need to emptied more regularly

·      Supports upgrading stairs

·      Supports planting

·      More regular maintenance required

22.  Anonymous

·      Concerned that changes may ruin environment

·      Concerned about cutting down of trees

23.  Kate Cameron

·      Concern for impact on environment

24.  Jane Coujar

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      Wants wooden rail to new stairs

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS

 MAJOR COMMENTS

25.  Jane Milner

·      Keep existing character

·      Retain wooden rails

26.  Anonymous

·      Retain and increase grassy area

·      Protect habitat

·      Increase native trees for shade

·      Cyclone wire fencing not colorbond

27.  M Johnson

·      Do not spoil area

·      No terraces that look like Bondi

28.  Anonymous

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      Supports safer steps

29.  Anonymous

·      Lacking sun bathing areas

30.  Anonymous

·      Keep existing character

·      Enhancements to large changing rooms- second toilet

31.  Catherine ?

·      Empty garbage daily -believes too be a health and safety issue

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      Fix broken steps

·      Lockers to have latches to protect belongings

32.  C Mills

·      Supports safer steps

·      Not convinced that we need new western steps

33.  Anonymous

·      Empty garbage daily

·      Need watering system for new work

·      Put up signs re litter

34.  Diana Ferry

·      Wants general upgrade of facilities – floors, mirrors lockers

35.  Anonymous

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      Shade a must

36.  Zabia Larue

·      Supports raising sun baking wall Keep existing character

·      Does not believe main stairs should be concrete

·      Shelter in storms

·      Likes idea of change rooms with no roof

37.  Anonymous

·      Supports safer steps

38.  Anonymous

·      Do not introduce modern amenities

·      Supports upgrade

·      Partitions to prevent rubbish

39.  Anonymous

·      Install dual flush toilets

·      Water conserving shower

40.  Carol Major

·      Does not support changes

41.  Virgnia Hilyard

·      Supports changes

·      Supports trees for shade

·      Supports for seating

·      Keep existing character

·      Need roof on change rooms

42.  Anonymous

·      Keep existing character

·      Need roof on change rooms

·      Provide recycle bins and empty daily

43.  Anonymous

·      Want to be able to change near corrugated iron sheeting

·      Rung at bottom of steps to go down to water not just bottom of steps

·      Upgrade change rooms

·      Keep existing character

44.  Jeanne Milner

·      Supports minimising water seepage

·      New plantings should be similar in character

·      Concerned works will impact on wildlife

·      In summer pool often crowded and terraces may accentuate this

45.  Karen Cornish

46.  Neroli Dickson

47.  Anita Mudge

48.  Linda Nelson

49.  Susan Thorp

·      Imperative to that environmental impact of any changes at the Baths be assessed.

·      Increased seating and sunbaking will increase number of pool users and subsequent increase in rubbish, traffic and encourage sunbaking.

·      Other issues of environmental impact that should be considered include:

Wildlife, flora, Sanitation, Waste, Noise, Traffic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 11/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING SITE - LEASE OPTION.

 

 

DATE:

20 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3862(2)

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Ordinary Council meeting on 13 February 2003, Council resolved to 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.

 

At Ordinary Council meeting on 15 October 2002, Council resolved to agree to the transfer of $1,152,000 from the Waste Reserve into the operating budget, to meet outlay and site establishment costs at the Bunnerong site, with reimbursement of a proportion of funds to the Reserve over the life of the lease. Transfer of $1,152,000 from the Waste Reserve into the operating budget has been made.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 July 2002, Council resolved to agree to the terms of the Heads of Agreement for lease of the recycling site and to delegate authority to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Heads of Agreement.   The Heads of Agreement was executed on 2 August 2002.

 

The Heads of Agreement requires the Landlord, Sydney Ports Corporation, to remediate the Site to the requirements of the Environmental protection Agency of New South Wales prior to March 2003. This agreement also requires Landlord’s solicitor to prepare lease documentations.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Heads of Agreement

 

The Heads of Agreement was signed for 20 years with commencement date of 1 August 2002 and rent commencement date of 1 May 2003.

 

The agreement includes the following Site Remediation Clause:

“The Landlord will remediate the Site to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency of New South Wales, prior to March 2003. In the event the Tenant when carrying out the Tenant’s building works finds contamination which will prevent the Tenant from using the Site for the Permitted Use, then the landlord will pay the reasonable cost of the remediation works to bring the site to a condition that will enable the Tenant to use the Site for the Permitted Use. The Landlord and Tenant must agree on the method of remediation and the schedule of rates for such remediation works prior to the Tenant carrying out such works.”

 

SPC has commenced site remediation works and is expected the remediation work be completed by 31 March 2003, with the draft Site management Plan completed by 31 March, the draft Validation report provided by early April and a final site audit report presented by 30 April 2003.

 

Local Environmental Plan Amendment

 

Council commenced the draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment process  after signing the Heads of Agreement. At the Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 13 February 2003, Council agreed to endorse the draft LEP Amendment No. 32. The draft LEP now has been forwarded for approval to the Minister for Planning. This approval may take some time to go through the ministerial process.

 

Development Application for site development cannot be determined until the amended LEP has been gazetted.

 

Lease Documentation

 

Landlord’s solicitor, Cutler Hughes and Harris, has drafted a lease agreement. A meeting was held at Cutler Hughes and Harris’ office in attendance of Council staff, Council’s solicitor, Sydney Ports Corporation (SPC) staff and SPC’s solicitor to discuss the draft agreement.

 

At the meeting Council made the point that the LEP amendment process, which requires ministerial approval, may take some time and as a consequence it is unlikely that Council will be able to commence site development works before the rent commencement date of 1 May 2003 as defined in the Heads of Agreement. On this ground Council requested for change of rent commencement date.

 

After considering Council’s request for change of rent commencement date, SPC has proposed the following option to lease:

 

Council will pay 75% of the agreed rent in the Heads of Agreement being $294,093.00 for six months from 1 May 2003 to 31 October 2003, during which period Council will have access to the site for surveys and investigations. This period can be extended from 1 November 2003 to 30 April 2004 with the same rental conditions if site occupation is further delayed. This option will give Council a right to notify SPC that it wishes to take the leasehold at any time during the Option Period or the Extension Period. The lease will commence within 14 days after the exercise of the option.

 

Purpose of the proposed option period is to allow time for the site to be remediated and a site audit report provided; an LEP amendment to be finalized, approved and gazetted and a Development Application or Applications to be lodged, considered and determined.

 

Council’s solicitor’s advice is that the concept of the options is lawful and if the proposal is accepted by Council it should be on the condition that the Heads of Agreement is formally at the end between the parties.

 

Subsequently, Council’s general Manager has discussed the matter with the General Manager of the Sydney Ports Corporation and further negotiated the option as follows:

 

Option Period:              3 Months from 1 May 2003 to 31 August 2003

Option Fee:                  50% of the agreed rent being $98,031 (to be confirmed) plus GST and all outgoings.

Access and Approval: During the option period (and any extension) Council would have access to premises for surveys and investigations and SPC would, subject to its approval, sign the relevant Development Applications etc.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

Council has engaged Resource Recovery Management Pty (RRM) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Development Application for the purpose of carrying out recycling activities at  lot 103, Bumborah Point Road. RRM has started works on preparation of EIS. Based on a draft EIS that RRM submitted to the Department of Planning NSW, the department has issued a guideline for preparation of the final EIS. The EIS is expected to be completed by end of April 2003.

 

Development Application

 

Council’s Consultant Resource Recovery Management Pty Ltd has commenced preparation of documentation required for lodging of a Development Application for the establishment of the Recycling Site. It is expected that the Development Application will be lodged with the Council by the end of April. Subject to the process running smoothly without delays development approval can be achieved in July 2003 and the site can be occupied on 1 August 2003 as stipulated in the Lease Option.  

 

Budget

 

In accordance with the Council resolution at Ordinary Council meeting on 15 October 2002, an amount of $1,152,000 has been transferred from Waste Reserve to the operating budget to cover rental and site establishment costs.  

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The lease option at 50% rent for 3 months starting from 1 May 2003 to 31 July 2003 will allow adequate time for preparation and lodgement of Development Applications for the purpose of carrying out recycling activities at the 15 Bumborah Point Road site by July 2003. Subject to the process running smoothly without undue delays, this lease option will allow Council to move on site before the full rent period starts on 1 august 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Note that due to the delay in the LEP amendment approval and gazetting process and site remediation Council will not be able to take over the Bumborah Point Road recycling site by 1 May 2003 as agreed in the Heads of Agreement; and

 

2.   Agree to the option to lease that Council will pay 50% of the agreed rent being $98,031 for a period of three months from 1 May 2003 to 31 July 2003 and from 1 August 2003 full rent commences for 20 year lease period.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 05/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0661

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Council annually reviews its Internal Reporting System and Policy in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act.

 

ISSUES:

 

Clause 12 of the Internal Reporting System, Policy No. 1.04.04, provides that the policy shall be reviewed annually to ensure that it meets the object of the legislation and facilitates the making of disclosures under the Act.

 

As detailed in the Policy, Randwick Council does not tolerate corrupt conduct, maladministration or serious and substantial waste of public money.  The Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Protected Disclosures Act.  It recognises the value and importance of contributions of staff to enhance administrative and management practices and strongly supports disclosures being made by staff without any detrimental action in reprisal for making the disclosures.

 

The network of nominated disclosure officers is significant and includes the General Manager, the Public Officer, all Department Heads, all Managers, the E.E.O.

Co-ordinator and all members of the Council’s Joint Consultative Committee.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst no disclosures have been made under the Council’s Internal Reporting System during the past year, it is considered that the Policy does meet the objects of the legislation and does facilitate the making of disclosures, should the need for such arise.  Disclosure ability is enhanced by the number of nominated disclosure officers as detailed in the Policy.

 

In addition, periodic articles are placed in the Staff Newsletter to refresh employees’ memories of the existence of the System.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Governance, Management and Information Services’ Report 05/2003, reviewing the Internal Reporting System – Protected Disclosures Act, in accordance with Clause 12 of Council’s Policy No. 1.04.04, be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 06/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT – RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION - 40 COOGEE BAY ROAD, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

18 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2738 xr P/003225

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application, under Section 12 of the Local Government Act, for access to information on the Council’s files was received from Mr P. Athens in respect to 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick.  Access to documents was restricted in this case as it was considered that allowing their inspection would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

 

ISSUES:

 

Section 12 of the Local Government  Act makes provision for everyone to inspect, free of charge, the majority of Council’s documents.

 

The exemption provisions of the Act are very narrow and need to meet certain specific criteria.  An extract from the Act which outlines those exemptions is detailed hereunder:

 

“(1A) [Exempt documents] Despite subsection (1) and other provisions of this Act, a person does have the right to inspect so much of a development application, or an application under Part 1 of Chapter 7 for approval to erect a building, as consists of:

 

(a)        the plans and specifications for any residential parts of a proposed building, other than plans that merely show its height and its external configuration in relation to the site on which it is proposed to be erected, or

(b)        commercial information, if the information would be likely:

 

(i)         to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii)        to reveal a trade secret.

 

(6) [Other documents] The council must allow inspection of its other documents free of charge unless, in the case of a particular document, it is satisfied that allowing inspection of the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

 

(7) [Exempt documents] However, subsection (6) does not apply to the part (if any) of a document that deals with any of the following:

 

(a)        personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors),

(b)        the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer,

(c)        trade secrets,

(d)        a matter the disclosure of which would:

(i)         constitute an offence against an Act, or

(ii)        found an action for breach of confidence.

 

(e)        that part of a draft or adopted plan of management that is the subject of a resolution of confidentiality under Section 36DA.”

 

In addition, it is interesting to note in Section 12(8) of the Act, for the purpose of determining whether allowing the inspection of a document would be contrary to the public interest, it is irrelevant that the inspection of the document may:

 

“(a)      cause embarrassment to the council or to councillors or to employees of the council, or

(a)        cause a loss of confidence in the council, or

(b)        cause a person to misinterpret or misunderstand the information contained in the document because of an omission from the document or for any other reason.”

 

Section 12A of the Act outlines the process to be followed if the General Manager or any other member of the staff of Council decides that access to a document or other information held by the Council should not be given and the person concerned must provide the Council with written reasons for the restriction.  Those reasons must be publicly available and the Council must review any restriction no later than 3 months after it is imposed.

 

In this particular application under Section 12 of the Act, Mr P. Athens sought access to “all correspondence, records, plans, all legal files, all letters of complaints, all correspondence and decisions from Alderman and Mayor, Town Planning records of all Departments in relation to the property inspection records photographic evidence” relating to 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick.

 

The Council’s Public Officer, Mr Peter Smith, in accordance with Section 343(1) of the Local Government Act, has the responsibility of assisting people to gain access to public documents of the Council, and he dealt with this application.  He considered that it would be inappropriate to grant access to the documents requested under Section 12 of the Act, as, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest in that legal proceedings are current between the Council, Mr Athens and Athens Holdings Pty Ltd (Matter No. 3779 of 2002) in relation to the property at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick.  In addition, the Public Officer considers the inspection/s that Council Officers may have undertaken and any records and photographs relating thereto have been made in the context of legal proceedings or contemplated legal proceedings.

 

Accordingly, Mr Athens was advised by the Public Officer, by letter dated 10th March, 2002, that the application for access was refused for the aforementioned reasons.  Mr Athens was further advised in that letter of his right of review as detailed in Section 12A (4) of the Act, namely:

 

“The Council must, at the request of any person made after the expiry of a period of 3 months after that review (or of a period of 3 months after the most recent of any subsequent reviews), carry out a further review of the restriction.:

 

In addition, the Council must remove the restriction if, at any time:

 

(a)        it finds that there are no grounds for the restriction, or

(b)        access to the relevant document or other information is obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1989.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Public Officer has restricted access to the document sought under the Section 12 application submitted by Mr P. Athens and it is now necessary for Council under Section 12A (3) of the Act to review this restriction.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the contents of the Director Governance, Management and Information Services Report 06/2003 be received and noted;

 

(b)        That the Council endorse the restriction placed by the Public Officer on access to documents which were the subject of the Section 12 application submitted by Mr P. Athens relating to 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick for the reasons detailed in the Director’s Report; and

 

(c)        That it will be noted that Mr P. Athens can still exercise his right to request a review by Council on the restriction to access being lifted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 07/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTION ARISING.  

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1733 xr 98/S/0911

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council Meeting held on 25th February, 2003 it was resolved that:

 

a)         Council reaffirm its decision of 22nd October, 2002 in relation to acknowledgement of correspondence and action arising therefrom; and

 

b)         A report be brought back to the next Council meeting on the specific measures which would need to be undertaken, or alternatives thereto, to implement Council’s decision of 22nd October,2002, including the costs associated with implementation of those measures.

 

The resolution of Council on 22nd October, 2002 is detailed hereunder:

 

“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:

 

As detailed in my report to the Council Meeting on 25th February, 2003, Council receives on average approximately 1,000 letters per week, in addition to faxes and E-mails.  In the case of faxes and E-mails it is unnecessary for Council to respond with a formal acknowledgement of those items, as the sender automatically receives at their end a message that their transmission has been successful (or unsuccessful).

 

Accordingly, the issue of acknowledging correspondence relates to incoming letters received through the post, over reception counters or at the libraries.  It is assumed that correspondence received personally or personally addressed to Councillors will continue to remain a separate entity with those Councillors dealing directly with their constituents, as would presently be the case.  Currently, all incoming Mayoral correspondence is acknowledged by the Mayor’s support staff.

 

Based on acknowledgement of the thousand letters per week at fifty cents postage and stationery at five cents per item, the cost of this aspect would equate to $28,600 annually.  In addition, to facilitate the process of acknowledgement, prior to the introduction of the new Total Corporate Computer System, it will be necessary for acknowledgement cards, specifying that the matter/request is being dealt with by a nominated department, to be printed.  The total cost of the various acknowledgement cards would be approximately $1,500 per annum.

 

Further, as also indicated in my previous report, the former policy provides for an acknowledgement response to occur when work will not be completed within a three week period, but this process is spread throughout the various Departments of Council.  Under the new policy of all correspondence being acknowledged, it would be necessary for the acknowledgement process to be centralised in the Records Section and acted upon at time of receipt of the correspondence.  This location is the most effective and efficient point for this task to be performed and will ensure that all incoming correspondence is captured for acknowledgement.

 

As the Records Section at present does not perform any part of that function and all staff are fully occupied undertaking other existing specific records related tasks, it would be necessary for an additional staff member to be employed at a cost of $35,000 per annum, excluding overheads.  Finally, that additional employee would need to be provided with normal office equipment, a computer and access to a printer.

 

In summary the cost of acknowledging incoming correspondence would equate to:

 

Staff Member’s Wages                                                             $35,000

Staff On-costs                                                                          $12,250

Postage & Envelopes                                                                $28,600

Acknowledgement Cards                                                          $1,500

        SUB TOTAL                                                                  $77,350           per annum cost

Office Equipment, Computer, etc                                              $7,700

        TOTAL                                                                           $85,050           initial annual cost

 

The second component of the new policy relates to the Council endeavouring to finalise issues to which correspondence pertains within twenty-one days.  Overall, an effort is already made to complete “normal” requests within a reasonable period of time.  However, the sheer volume of requests and the nature of those requests does not always allow for completion of those tasks in the short term.  In addition, the requests need to be prioritised with those that have a public safety aspect being dealt with more expeditiously, those of a routine maintenance nature being listed for action progressively and those which involve substantial expenditure, which may not be budgeted for, being referred to future works programmes and awaiting the provision of funding by Council on a priority rating.  The annual demands on Council generally far exceed the Council’s annual financial capability to perform those works.

 

Accordingly, it would appear that the most sensible course of action for Council, following receipt of correspondence which involves a works request, would be for it to be initially assessed and categorised and for the author to be advised by the responsible Department when and if that action will be undertaken, based on available or future funding.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Council has reaffirmed its decision of 22nd October, 2002, in relation to the acknowledgement of correspondence and action arising therefrom, it is suggested that Council’s policy No. 3.01.10 be amended as detailed in the new draft policy, provided that the additional funds amounting to $85,050 are voted in the 2003/04 budget and the new Policy will then come into effect on 1st July, 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That Council adopt amended Policy No. 3.01.10 attached to the Director Governance, Management & Information Services Report 07/2003 entitled “Acknowledgement of Incoming Correspondence and Action Arising”;

 

b)         That funds in the sum of $85,050 be provided in the 2003/04 budget to facilitate the implementation of Policy No. 3.01.10, which will take effect from 1st July, 2003;

 

c)         That upon receipt of correspondence in the various Departments, the issues raised be either addressed and completed within 21 days or the responsible Department communicate with the author and provide a response which details the proposed course of action on the issue; and

 

d)         That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Amended Policy No. 3.01.10

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

DRAFT AMENDED

 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 3 – CORPORATE SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:         /         /                                                                    Policy No: 3.01.10

 

 

 

POLICY TITLE:   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE & ACTION ARISING.

 

 

File No:  98/S/1733

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To ensure that the Council’s public image is enhanced by providing an acknowledgement of incoming correspondence and advice to correspondents on action arising.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

a)         That an acknowledgement letter be forwarded to the correspondent indicating which Department (or Division) will be handling the matter; and

 

b)         That the relevant Departments endeavour to finalise the issue to which the correspondence pertains within twenty-one (21) days and, if this is not possible, the correspondent be advised by that Department of the proposed course of action on the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Amended:_______/2003                                                                      25 March, 2003


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 15/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

6 Cobham Street, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2003

FILE NO:

02/00802/GA

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 802/2002 for alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling house at 6 Cobham Street, Maroubra. This application has been deferred from the previous Health, Building and Planning Committee on 11 March 2003 to allow a site inspection for interested Councillors to take place. It is now resubmitted 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.  Health, Building & Planning Committee Report dated 11 March 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

14 January, 2003

FILE NO:

02/00802/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 6 Cobham Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Heinz & Karen Mueller

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Bruce Notley-Smith, Ted Seng and Marjery Whitehead.

 

The estimated cost of the development is &150,000.

 

The application is seeking approval for alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling. The existing semi-detached dwellings are  unusual as they have been constructed as separate dwellings attached by the study of the existing dwelling and share a common boundary.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and two (2) submissions were received. The main concerns relate to loss of amenity, architectural character, height and overshadowing.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to carry out ground floor alterations and additions to create an open lounge, dining, kitchen, family room with laundry a separate WC and a study. It is also proposed to construct a new first floor addition. The first floor will contain 3 bedrooms, one with ensuite and walk-in-wardrobe and a bathroom.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the northern side of Cobham Street, Maroubra and is occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, having a frontage of 19.78m to Cobham Street, depth of 15.325m. the subject site has a total site area of 265m2. Adjoining the site to the east and west are existing single storey dwellings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

There is no previous development application history relevant to the subject application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified on 12 December 2002 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Joan McLeod - 16 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

 

-     Back fence of subject property backs onto their property. Proposed development will compromise privacy of backyard.

-     First floor bedroom window can be reduced in size or have sill height raised.

-     The application proposed new glass doors at the rear ground floor level.

-     Removal of trees at rear of site will reduce the level of privacy currently achieved.

 

Jim Demetrio Architectural Design and Building Consultant on behalf of Ms Gardiner      - 18 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

 

-     Part of the extension on the common boundary is not cavity brick, it is face brick and will be sited directly on common boundary with nil setback.

-     Area between the existing two buildings is main outdoor leisure area for client. The proposal will have an unacceptable bulk and scale impact on clients property.

-     Proposal will have a great overshadowing impact in particular on neighbours garden area.

-     Shadow diagrams are incomplete, unclear and not directly labelled.

-     Proposal does not preserve natural light access to clients property.

-     Proposal has nil setbacks at both levels and does not comply with objectives of the DCP for setbacks.

-     The proposed addition in its current form is inconsistent with the DCP for the following reasons:

o It is in front of the main roof ridge line of the semi

o It is quite unbalanced in its appearance when considering both buildings

o The proposed design has a “butter box” approach to its design

o It will destroy the symmetry of both semi

o It will destroy the architectural integrity of both semis.

 

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 building is:

 

Dwelling – Class 1a

 

-     General comments

No objections is raised with respect to compliance with the

 

·    Environmental health and building provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

·    Provisions of the Building Code of Australia

 

6.2       Engineering Issues

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not Applicable as the site is less than 4000m2.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

High thermal mass materials.

Solar hot water systems.

Insulated hot water pipes.

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

Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

Task lights.

 

Maximised natural lighting.

 

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

 

N/A alterations and additions to existing dwelling.

 

 

Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to north facing windows to living areas.

 

 

Complies: 3 hours sunlight received to recreation areas of adjoining properties.

 

Complies, north facing windows to living areas of adjoining properties will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

 

 

 

 

Complies, principle recreation areas will receive 3 hours of sunlight.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

fit in with hydrology;

use on–site stormwater infiltration;

maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

retain existing trees.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

allows year-round use

minimises impact on neighbours

addresses privacy and sun access

addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

Complies, approx 49% of site area is landscaped.

 

Complies > 72m2

 

 

Complies dimensions include 4.6m x 15.67m

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies Approx 35%

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Complies 0.65:1

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

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

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

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

 

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

 

Complies 6.1m

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

No proposed changes to front setback of dwelling.

 

 

 

 

Complies, rear setback, 4.6m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, 6.1m and nil setback from eastern and western side boundaries respectively.

 

Does not comply, 6.1 m and nil setback from eastern and western side boundaries respectively (See section 8.2.1)

 

N/A

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, bedroom window at rear first floor within 9m (See section 8.2.1)

 

Does not comply

(See section 8.2.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

enable the efficient use of car spaces.

safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

Garages and carport to a rear leane are 1m setback.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

N/A garage existing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

8.2.1    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Landscaping

 

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

 

As indicated in the table above, the proposal fully complies with the landscaping requirements of the DCP, which requires a minimum of 40% of the site area to be landscaped of which 20% of the area has a permeable treatment.

 

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily complies with Council’s objectives and performance requirements in regards to landscaping requirements.

 

Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment with an area of 265m2 is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies.

 

The proposed additions meet the maximum floor space ratio preferred solution for the site. The proposed dwelling is an existing semi-detached building, however, has been constructed such that both halves of the semis appear as separate dwellings, and not as one split dwelling. The adjoining semi addresses the adjoining side Street, Kingsford Street The proposed additions are an extension of the existing building envelope and is compatible in bulk with the surrounding locality and will not be out of character with the streetscape.

 

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regard to bulk and scape and is compatible with the character of the existing building and surroundings. The proposal satisfactorily complies with the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives relating to floor area. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal satisfactorily complies with the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements relating to building height, form and materials and will not be excessive in height and is compatible with the character and form of the surroundings. The proposed semi is constructed such that its appearance is that of two separate dwellings, furthermore, the adjoining semi addresses the adjoining side street. The proposed first floor addition is designed to integrate with the character of the existing building. The design elements of the proposed first floor additional are substantially congruous with the character of the existing building and the characteristics found in the surrounding built form.

 

The proposal satisfactorily complies with the preferred solutions and performance requirements with regard to height form and materials.

 

Building Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed additions generally follow the envelope of the existing building. The existing building being a semi-detached dwelling has a nil setback along the common western boundary which it shares with the adjoining property. It is proposed to extend the building along the existing envelope which does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks. Overshadowing arising from the proposal will be acceptable as adjoining properties will be able to receive the minimum 3 hours sunlight requirement during winter (see section 9 Environmental Assessment), and the limited encroachment is not considered to give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, access to light, air and views.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

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

 

It is not considered that significant overlooking will transpire from the proposed development at ground floor level due to the position and location of the windows relative to the adjoining properties and also the separation between the properties. At first floor level there is a proposed bedroom and bathroom window. These are setback approx 4.6m from the rear boundary. There is concern from the adjoining rear property with regards to overlooking into the private courtyard of the adjoining rear property. It is recommended that should approval be granted, the sill height of the window be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the window be fixed and provided with translucent glazing below the specified level in order to maintain privacy to the adjoining property.

 

Urban Design and Streetscape fit

 

The majority of Cobham street comprises of generally unaltered single storey semi-attached cottages the streetscape therefore is relatively intact in terms of its scale and form however the architectural design features of most of the semis are quite different. There are a few examples of first floor additions to semis in the street, namely the very modern first floor addition located on the corner of Cobham and Kingsford Street. This development is a very new and innovative addition which does not respect the symmetry and simple proportions of the existing semi however the addition is considered to be very interesting and sets a high standard and quality of development. It also creates a distinct definition and transition between old and new and this design concepts seems to work well. Further down the street there is another rather large and bulky first floor addition to a semi on the corner of Cobham street and Wild Street.

 

Like most neighbouring streets Cobham Street is wide and windy and as such can be read as a series of components to the streetscape rather than one long narrow road with houses all relating to one another. Although there is some consistency still remaining in the street this relates more directly to the form and scale of development being single storey semi detached cottages rather than the architectural design characteristics exemplified. The site isn’t part of a conservation area and is in an area that is experiencing much transition in the form of most properties being improved and upgraded to provide for larger more spacious homes. The subject property is a simple semi-detached cottage linked by a study. Both semis are simple in scale and form and haven’t been upgraded in any way. The only real common features of both is a central gable feature, roof and red brick. First floor additions are permissible in the street and the proposal complies with the floor space ratio control. Both semis front facades are long and hence the proposal will to some degree break up the bulk of that building wall. The common feature being the study will remain a single storey element and this component is part of No.6 Cobham. This means that in the future No.8 Cobham can be redeveloped and will be read as a separate development unlike the traditional semis where additions should relate to one another since they are so similar. The central gable feature will be retained and there will be an ample setback from the rear and sides despite part of the building wall being sited directly on the boundary. 

 

Although the proposed first floor addition will alter the design of the current property there is scope for improvement and the design will not adversely affect the adjoining semi or the streetscape.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

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

 

It is proposed to replace the existing garage door with a new roller door and enlarge the existing opening, however there are no changes to the size and dimensions of the garage. No objections are generally seen to this.

 

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       Proposed design in relation to existing building and natural environment

 

The proposed first floor addition to the semi is setback behind the front section of the existing roof line, however is not setback behind the main roof ridge. The proposed pair of semis are designed such that they are presented as two separate dwellings and not as a typical semi which are designed as one house with a common wall between them. The proposed first floor addition will not affect the symmetry of the pair. The proposed first floor addition is compatible with the character of the existing building and the surroundings.

 

9.2       Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining development

 

Shadows cast by the proposed development affects No 18 Kingsford Street, Maroubra (indicated on the plans as No 8 Cobham Street) to the west in the morning period and falls along the road to the east in the afternoon.

 

The DCP requires as a preferred solution, that at least 3 hours of sunlight is received to the principle outdoor recreation spaces and north facing windows of adjoining properties between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours are available under the current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the majority of shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto the roof, side walls and part of the rear yard area of No 18 Kingsford Street to the west in the morning period up until 12 noon. The shadows cast by the proposed development would fall onto the subject property, along the road and part of the front yard area of No 18 Kingsford Street to the east in the afternoon period from about 12 noon onwards.

 

The requirement for a minimum 3 hours sunlight being substantially received to rear yards and living spaces of adjoining properties would be reasonably met, by the proposed development.

 

9.2       Matters raised by objectors

 

A majority of the issues raised in the submissions have been discussed in the report above. The following relates to issues in the submissions not previously discussed.

 

-       Part of the extension on the common boundary is not cavity brick, it is face brick and will be sited directly on common boundary with nil setback.

 

Comment:

 

The plans indicate that part of the extension at ground floor will be cavity brick with face brickwork along the common boundary.

 

-       The proposal will have an unacceptable bulk and scale impact on clients property.

 

Comment:

 

The existing pair of semi have an unusual subdivision pattern. They are not directly divided in half and the courtyard of the adjoining semi adjoins the common wall of the subject property. The two semis are joined by one bedroom along the southern common wall. Due to the irregular subdivision pattern the wall of the building is sited on the boundary of the adjoining courtyard, however the bulk is broken up by the irregularity of the subdivision.

 

-       Shadow diagrams are incomplete, unclear and not directly labelled.

 

Comment:

 

Additional plans submitted indicate the cumulative shadow impact of both the existing building and the proposed addition.

 

-       Proposal does not preserve natural light access to clients property.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that under the current conditions the main courtyard at the north eastern corner of the adjoining property is in shadow during the morning period from about 9.00am until about 12 noon. The proposed additions will result in an increase in the length of the shadows and these will primarily fall onto the roof and side walls of the adjoining property. Three hours of sunlight will still be received to primary outdoor recreation areas during the afternoon period.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed additions generally satisfy the relevant objectives and performance standards applicable to the subject site under the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 802/2002 for alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling house at 6 Cobham Street, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 32/02, dated 16/8/02 and received by Council on 23 August 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:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

2.        The sill height of the first floor bedroom window at the western rear elevation is to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below the specified level.

 

3.        The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the street scape, to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of Planning and Environment.

 

4.        The colour and texture of the brickwork is required to match, as closely as possible, the existing external walls of the building.

 

5.        The design and colour of the roof tiles to the proposed building/s are required to match, as closely as possible, the material and colour of the existing roof.

 

6.        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.

 

7.        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.

 

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

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS & FIRE SAFETY:

 

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

 

9.        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.

 

10.      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 $5,000.

 

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

 

STRUCTURAL:

 

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

 

11.      A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:

 

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

 

12.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14.      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.

 

15.      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.

 

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

 

(a)        Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

(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.

 

17.      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.

 

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

 

19.      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

20.      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.

 

21.      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.

 

22.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

FIRE SAFETY:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit Conditions:

 

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

 

25.      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)         $700.00           -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

A.  Extend the existing concrete layback and construct a concrete vehicular crossing between the layback and property line to suit the modified vehicular entrance to the site.

 

27.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's 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 roadway.

 

28.      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.

 

Alignment Level Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

·    100 mm below the back of the existing layback at all points opposite the layback; and

·    150 mm below the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full 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.

 

30.      The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level)  issued by Council and their relationship to the layback/kerb 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.

 

31.      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $68.20 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

32.      The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

33.      A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

NADIA ELBOTATY

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 16/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

10 Bapaume Parade, Matraville

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0049/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No D/0049/2003 for alterations and ground and first floor rear additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a pergola, garage, swimming pool and front fence 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 11 March 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

11 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0049/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and ground and first floor rear additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including a pergola, garage, swimming pool and front fence.

PROPERTY:

 10 Bapaume Parade, Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Michael Kevin Bracken

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Chris Bastic, Michael Daley and Alan White.

 

The application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and no submissions were received.

 

 The estimated cost of the development is $180,000.

 

The proposal satisfactorily addresses all relevant assessment criteria. The main issue relates to building setbacks.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and ground and first floor additions to the rear portion of the existing semi-detached dwelling house. The additions are to accommodate a W.C., laundry, kitchen, dining and family room at ground floor level. A shower room and two bedrooms at first floor level. The timber garage within the rear yard is to be demolished and in its place the construction of a reinforced concrete swimming pool.

 

An open timber pergola is proposed into the rear yard at ground floor and a garage to the front of the dwelling house adjacent to the western side boundary. 

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north eastern side of Bapaume Street between its intersections with Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road. The site is a regular shaped allotment with a frontage to Bapaume Street of 8.195m, a depth of 43.25m and a site area of 380.00sq.m. The site is currently accommodates a two storey semi-attached dwelling.

 

Adjoining to the east is a two storey semi-attached pair dwelling at No12 Bapaume Street and adjoining to the west is a single storey dwelling at No 8 Bapaume Street. Adjoining to the rear are single and two storey dwelling houses having frontage to Beauchamp Road.

 

Development in the locality comprises predominantly single to two storey dwelling houses with several dwellings, which have had first floor additions.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

There is no development history exist on site.

 

4.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submission to the proposal was received.

 

5.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

5.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

            -     BCA classification

 

                  Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is:

         Class 1a-dwelling

 

            -     General comments

 

            No objection is raised with respect to compliance with the

 

C   provisions of the Building Code of Australia

C   environmental health and building provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

5.2       Engineering Issues

 

Landscape comments

 

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

 

a)   One (1) Ligustrum species (Privet) located along the western property boundary, in front of the existing garage. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in good health. This tree is considered a noxious weed within Randwick City Council area. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

b)   One (1) Cotoneaster species (Cotoneaster) located along the western boundary in front of the access gates to the rear yard. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and is in poor condition. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement tree (not palm) planted within the site.

 

c)   One (1) Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’ (Golden Robinia) located along the western property boundary, in front of the existing garage. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in good health. This tree is direct conflict with the proposed works. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement tree (not palm) planted within the site.

 

d)   One (1) Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush) located within the front yard of the site. This tree is approximately 10 metres tall and appears to be in good health. This tree should be retained as part of this application and tree protection measures will be required during construction.

 

A number of development consent conditions are recommended should the application be approved.

 

6.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

6.1       Policy Controls

 

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

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Complies with preferred solutions & performance requirement.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Complies with preferred solution & performance requirement.  

 

 

 

 

Complies with preferred solution & performance requirement.  

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

Stormwater to be drained to Council’s street system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suitable condition included in recommendation.

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Complies with preferred solutions & performance requirement.  

 

Complies with performance requirements.  

 

Comply with performance requirement.  

.

Comply with performance requirement.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies with preferred solution & performance requirement.  

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Site Area =380sq.m Preferred FSR is 0.60:1. Proposed FSR is 0.47:1.

Complies.

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

 

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

 

 

 

Proposed wall height = 5.80m.  Complies.

 

No significant views available.

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

No, Garage encroaches front building line. See Section 7.1 in the report.

 

 

Rear setback approx. 18.0m.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Ground floor garage is proposed on western boundary.

 

First floor western wall encroaches the preferred setback of 1.5m by 600mm.

 

N/A.

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

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

 

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

S3  Buildings comply with

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

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies with preferred solutions & performance requirement.  .

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies with preferred solution & performance requirement.  

 

 Complies.

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Complies with DCP- Parking. Stack parking available for two vehicles.

 

Complies.

Existing driveway is currently setback approximately 1.0m from the side boundary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Garage breach the front building line. See Section 7.1 in the report.

 

Complies with preferred solution & performance requirement.   35% of frontage proposed.

 

 

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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

 

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

Complies. Front fence is maximum of 1.20m high with metal railing infill.

 

7.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1       Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

As indicated in the table to Section 7.1 of the report, the proposal complies with most of the preferred solutions of DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies with the exception of the following:

 

a.     Western side boundary setback at ground and first floor level

 

The proposal encroaches the ground and first preferred setback of 900mm and 1.5m respectively on the Western side elevation. However, given that the proposed setback will integrate well with the side setback of the adjoining semi-pair and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape, and allow adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air to the adjoining dwellings, the development is considered acceptable in this regard.  The performance requirements of the DCP in relation to side boundary setbacks will be satisfactorily met.

 

b.     Front setback

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that front setback is consistent with the adjoining or dominant established setbacks along the street. The garage at the front of the dwelling house will encroach into the average setbacks of the adjoining houses and the proposal will not meet with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. This issue is discussed further below in the report under the heading “Garages & Driveways”.

 

c.     Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

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

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing timber garage at the rear yard and erect a single garage with a dimension of 3.20m x 6.99m at the front of the building. The proposal does not satisfy the preferred solution requirement that generally garages and carports are to be located behind the building line. Furthermore, the proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirements and objectives under Section 4.7 of the DCP as the proposal will be visually obtrusive and will detract from the visual presentation of the dwelling house.

 

 It is to be noted that the adjoining semi-pair dwelling does provide a garage behind the building line and that the proposed car space on the subject site is more than sufficient in dimension to accommodate an average family car. In order that the proposal does not set a precedent for further inappropriate on-site car parking and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape, it is recommended that a condition be attached that the garage be reduced in length and increased in front setback so that it does not protrude further forward than the proposed foyer (garage is to be no greater than 5.6m in total length).

 

8.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposal performs satisfactorily in relation to all relevant assessment criteria and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. The development is not considered excessive in bulk or scale. Provided that the proposed garage does not dominant and breach the predominant building alignment when viewed from the street, the proposal will be compatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0049/2003 for alterations and ground and first floor rear additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a pergola, garage, swimming pool and front fence:-

 

1.      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising two sheets prepared by Peter Bandfield numbered 7/03 dated 22/01/2003 and received by Council on 24 January 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.       In order to improve the visual presentation of the proposed development and the local streetscape, the garage is to be reduced in length and its front setback increased, so that it does not protrude further forward than the proposed foyer (garage is to be no greater than 5.6m in total length).

 

4.       This consent does not extend to the pool. A separate application is to be submitted to and approved by the Council for the pool at the rear of the site as there is inadequate details provided to Council to enable proper assessment of the application.

 

5.      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.

 

6.     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.

 

7.     The provisions of Councils tree preservation order are strictly to be observed and it is a requirement that the applicant or their representative obtain any necessary consent required under the tree preservation order.

 

Should compliance require amendment to the plan an amended development application is required to be submitted for consideration and approval prior to work commencing

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.      External paths and ground surfaces are to be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises in such a manner so as not to result in the entry of water into a building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

10.    There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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 has been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

13.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the proposed building 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:

 

14.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991 The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July 1993.

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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. 

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works. The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS 3786 - Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

29.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

31.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $68.20 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

32.       The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

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

 

33.       A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

34.       The applicant must meet the full cost for 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management:

 

36.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 2 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement tree (not palm) within the site. The species selected shall be one that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a.   One (1) Ligustrum species (Privet) located along the western property boundary, in front of the existing garage.

 

b.   One (1) Cotoneaster species (Cotoneaster) located along the western boundary in front of the access gates to the rear yard.

 

c.   One (1) Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’ (Golden Robinia) located along the western property boundary, in front of the existing garage.

 

37.       Permission is granted for the removal of only those trees falling within the area occupied by the approved works. Removals of the remaining trees on the site are subject to separate application under the Tree Preservation Order.

 

38.       The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long-term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the dripline/s of the subject tree/s.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

39.       In order to ensure the retention of the Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush) tree located within the front yard this property in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.   All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the retention of the existing tree specimen with the position of the tree trunk and full diameter of the tree canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.   All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show footings of a pier and beam construction along the proposed fence in order to minimise damage to the roots of this tree. The plan shall also note that piers are to be located to avoid any roots greater than 30mm in diameter.

 

c.   There is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed within 2 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

Any works required within this 2 metre zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

Advisory Conditions:

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 17/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Section 82A Review of Determination for extension of hours of operation of an existing restaurant at No. 10-12 Bream Street, Coogee.

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0434/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Dominic Sullivan, Paul Tracey and John Procopiadis.

 

Consent to Development Application No. 02/00434/GF was granted by Council under delegated authority on the 2 September, 2002, for the extension of hours of operation, the utilisation of the rear courtyard for increased seating area, increase to footway dining to 10 patrons and alterations and additions to the café including new bi-fold doors to the shopfront.

 

The consent was granted subject to a trial period of 12 months for the extended trading hours as set out in Conditions Nos. 23 and 24, which read as follows:

 

            “23.     The hours of operation of the premises (excluding the footway dining and rear courtyard dining area) being restricted to 7.00am to 10.00pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00am to 11.00pm Friday to Saturday.

 

24.     The hours of operation of the footpath dining area and rear courtyard dining areas being restricted to 7.00 am to 9.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 10.00pm Friday and Saturday.

 

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

 

The extended hours of operation contained in Conditions Nos. 23 and 24 could only be taken-up after an acoustic report had been prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with Condition No. 10 of the same consent which reads as follows:

 

“10.    The applicant shall undertake all necessary measures and works to the premises to attenuate noise from the footway dining, indoor dining and courtyard dining area and associated plant/equipment to a level that complies with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

Following which, a report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to extended hours of operation, certifying that the noise from the plant and equipment (including but not limited to, cool room motor), and noise generated from footway dining and indoor dining patrons will comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.”

 

A Section 96 application was lodged on 24 October 2002 to modify Conditions Nos 23 and No. 24 to the following hours of operation:

 

                        Internal Dining

            7 days – 11 pm (closure)

 

                        Footway and Rear Courtyard

            Sunday to Thursday  - 10 pm (closure)

            Friday and Saturday  -  11 pm (closure)

 

The applicant has submitted an application seeking a review of the Section 96 determination of 14 January 2003 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The prevailing concern associated with the proposal is the detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant especially in relation to noise from the current unauthorised hours of operation of the restaurant, and the potential exacerbation of noise under the applicant’s proposed hours of operation.

 

It is recommended that Council’s original determination of the Section 96 application be confirmed and the approved hours remain. 

 

2.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Bream Street and part of a strip of mixed-use development comprising ground floor shops and first floor housing. The strip is located on the intersection of Carrington Road and Bream Street.

 

The subject premises comprise an existing restaurant business known as Chez Benny. The business currently provides seating both within the restaurant and on the footway. The first floor of the subject building contains a residential use.

 

 

 

The surrounding area is predominantly residential development. To the north of the subject site, on the opposite side of Bream Street, are residential uses comprising primarily dwelling houses, to the east are adjoining shops and residential uses comprising dwelling houses and residential flat buildings beyond, to the south are residential flat buildings, and to the west is a shop, a service station and the shopping strip fronting Carrington Road.

 

3.    SITE/APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development applications previously determined for the subject site are as follows:

 

0114/1997       Change of use to deli-sandwich shop  Approved           14/04/97

0114/1997       S102 to install mechanical ventilation Approved 21/04/98

0071/2000       Change of hours and install 6 tables       Refused           27/03/00

0479/2000       Change of use                                       Approved        24/05/00

0614/2001       Refurbishment of existing café   Refused           18/07/01

 

The current hours of operation of the restaurant were approved under Development Consent No. 0479/2000 on 24 May 2000 and are as follows:

 

Sunday to Thursday      7.00 am to 9.00 pm

Friday and Saturday     7.00am to 10.00pm

 

Development application No. 434/2002,  seeking the extension of hours of operation, utilisation of the rear courtyard for increased seating area, increase in footway dining to 10 patrons and alterations and additions to the café including new bi-fold doors to the shopfront, was approved under delegated authority on 2 September 2002.

 

A Section 96 application was subsequently lodged on 25 October 2002 to modify conditions restricting the hours of operation (Conditions Nos 23 and 24) to those originally sought. Council refused this application on 14 January 2003 for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed modified operating hours will cause further adverse impacts on residential amenity since Council has received several complaints relating to noise and non-compliance with the approved hours of operation.

 

2.       The proposed extension of trading hours for the footway dining, rear courtyard and indoor dining areas is considered excessive and is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearby residents.

 

3.       The proposed modified operating hours will set an undesirable precedent for future development in the locality.

 

4.       The proposed extension of operating hours is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

A request to review the Section 96 determination of Conditions Nos. 23 and 24 was subsequently received on 4 February 2003.

 

4.    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, enables an applicant to request a review of a determination of a development application or condition/s of development consent. Council may review the determination and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the determination.

 

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

 

5.   COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Following the request for a determination review, the proposal was re-notified to surrounding property owners on 5 February 2003. In response to this notification the following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

T. Largent, 3/18 Bream Street, Coogee

·    Current restaurant opening hours already affect amenity, extended hours would exacerbate this situation.

 

·    Sleep disturbed by noise from the current operations of the restaurant especially to objector’s children regularly awoken by the noise from the restaurant. Extended hours would exacerbate this situation.

 

·    Shortage of on-street car parking has been exacerbated since the restaurant opened.

 

·    Safety concerns from the number of illegally parked cars and use of the footpath for restaurant seating.

 

·    Restaurant already operates outside the permitted hours with the resultant noise and loss of parking causing stress to objector’s family.

 

P Lofts, 6/18 Bream Street, Coogee

·    Restaurant has not complied with the original development approval.

 

·    Sound levels which are required to be taken from the rear by an acoustic engineer have not been submitted.

 

·    There are a number of bedrooms located in proximity to the rear courtyard of the subject premises including the objector’s such that the objector is still disturbed by excessive noise from customers at the front of the restaurant let alone in the rear courtyard.

 

·    The restaurant operator is in constant breach of the current operating conditions including exceeding the defined footway dining area, exceeding the approved hours of operation, exceeds the number of allowable patrons, and excessive noise.

 

·    Reduced on-street carparking for local residents due to number of patrons visiting the restaurant.

 

·    Increase in vermin (rats) in backyard of objector’s residence.

 

·    Litter from the restaurant ends up in the front yard of objector’s residence.

 

M. and M. Empson, 5 Bream Street, Coogee                   

·    Patrons of the restaurant regularly park across the driveway to the objector’s property.

 

·    Noise from patrons leaving the restaurant is very disturbing.

 

·    Sleep often interrupted (especially of children) by noise from the restaurant and cars constantly coming and going.

 

·    Restaurant has constantly breached the approved hours of operation.

 

F. Milley, 262 Carrington Road, Coogee

§ Extension of trading hours will in practice reduce the available noise-free hours.

 

§ Restaurant will exacerbate the shortage of on-street carparking.

 

§ Pedestrian movement along the front footpath of the restaurant is constantly obstructed.

 

§ Patrons leaving the restaurant are noisy, will be exacerbated by the proposed extended hours of operation, and this is not conducive to family life.

 

§ The restaurant proprietor has openly defied Council’s rulings on operating hours.

 

K and I See, 8 Bream Street, Coogee

§ Adverse noise impacts from the restaurant onto the living area and bedroom of the objector’s property.

 

§ Noise may continue until 11.30 pm or later as patrons linger outside the restaurant.

 

A. and J. Berne, 3 Bream Street, Coogee

§ The operator of the restaurant has not adhered to the current hours of operation on numerous occasions.

 

§ Noisy patrons both leaving the café and sitting outside the café disturbs sleep at 11.00 pm.

 

§ Increase traffic and lack of sleep causing stress.

 

C and C. Tsiribas, 9 Bream Street, Coogee

§ Operator of the restaurant continually allows patrons to remain outside the footpath and inside the restaurant after the designated trading hours.

 

§ Noise from patrons dining and leaving and from cleaning-up disturbs sleep.

 

§ Noise is physically, mentally and emotionally affecting well-being of family.

 

N. and E Hill, 5/22 Bream Street, Coogee                            

§ Sleep interrupted on many occasions by noise from the restaurant and by patrons leaving so that extended hours would make this worse.

 

§ Restaurant will disregard any approved closing time.

 

§ Parking and traffic problem would increase.

 

M. and A. Wilkinson, 20 Bream Street, Coogee

§ Restaurant is currently operating outside the approved hours of operation.

 

§ Noise continually from patrons sitting outdoor past the 30 minutes allowed in condition No. 24 of the development consent and from patrons leaving.

 

§ Restaurant will disregard any approved closing time.

 

§ Lack of carparking exacerbated by the restaurant.

 

§ Personal amenity is badly affected by noise.

 

K & P Kirton, 7 Bream Street, Coogee

§ Creates unacceptable increase in noise and pressure on carparking.

 

§ The acoustic test (accompanying the DA) conducted on an evening not indicative of the noise generated by the restaurant.

 

§ Loudness of customers whilst dining and leaving the premises.

 

§ Business does not adhere to the approved hours of operation and outdoor seating.

 

§ Vehicles parked across objector’s driveway.

 

5.2 Support

 

One submission was received in support of the application:

 

J. Herald, 10/21 Bream Street, Coogee

 

§ Proposal will enhance streetscape.

 

6.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

6.1   Reasons for review

 

As indicated on the Section 82A request form, the applicant has provided one reason for requesting the review, worded as follows:

 

“Need of this hour in order not to close down.”

 

6.2   Assessment

 

The economic benefit of having longer hours of operation is self-evident and the restaurant owner’s concerns in this regard are noted. However, a request to extend the hours of operation for economic gain should also give recognition to the amenity impacts arising from any extension to the hours of operation of the restaurant, and accordingly address these likely amenity impacts. The prevailing concern associated with the proposal is that of noise and its impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residents. The applicant has offered no suggestions or means to address both the existing problem of noise from the current unauthorised hours of operation and the potential exacerbation of this problem under the proposed hours of operation.

 

Having regard to the applicant’s economic rationale for extended operating hours, the hours of operation contained in Condition No. 23 and No. 24 are considered to provide a reasonable compromise between the needs of the restaurant business and the environmental impact on the community subject to a one-year trial period (condition No.1) to monitor the noise levels/impacts generated by the development during which the applicant can apply for further approval to extend the consent. In fact, condition No. 24 provides for longer hours of operation for the rear courtyard (7.00am to 9.00 pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00 am to 10.00 pm Friday and Saturday) than that originally sought (that is, last orders 8.30 pm and closure by 9.00pm). The one-year trial period presents the applicant with an opportunity to institute noise management practices and attenuation measures and demonstrate to the community that the extended hours of operation will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

The adverse impact of noise arising from unauthorised trading beyond the approved hours of operation is evident from:

 

·    resident submissions to the development application, the subsequent Section 96 application and the current Section 82A request. It is apparent from several submissions in the DA, Section 96 and Section 82A notification process that a persistent problem has been the breach in the approved hours of operation of the restaurant and the detrimental impact this has had on surrounding residents.

 

·    on-going complaints received and recorded by Council’s Regulatory and Environmental Health Officers regarding the restaurant’s non-compliances and attendant noise issues both before and after development consent 434/2002 was issued on 2 September 2002.

 

Accordingly, condition No. 10 of the development consent clearly required an acoustic report to be prepared and submitted to Council certifying that noise from the plant and equipment (including the cool room motor), and noise generated from the footway dining and indoor dining patrons comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 prior to the take-up of the extended hours of operations specified in Conditions No. 23 and No. 24.

 

An acoustic report prepared by Gordon Downey was submitted by the applicant with the initial development application. The applicant contends that this acoustic report is adequate to demonstrate compliance with the Council’s acoustical criteria to allow the restaurant to operate to the extended hours of operations sought. In the assessment of the development application, Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services Department advised that the acoustical report did not provide adequate evidence to indicate that the noise generated by the premises would comply with Council’s noise criteria. In the subsequent Section 96 application, the applicant continued to rely on the same acoustic report submitted with the development application. Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services again advised that the acoustic report was deficient in that it did not address Council’s acoustic criteria as contained in the specific requirements of Condition No. 10 of the development consent.

 

On 20 February 2003, the applicant provided additional advice from Steven Cooper Acoustics in response to the requirements of Condition No. 10.  An assessment by Council’s Environmental Health Officer indicates that the advice given is still inadequate as no details have been provided to satisfy the requirements of condition No. 10. The business continues to operate under unauthorised hours of operation. Accordingly, the earlier assessment of the planning officer in relation to the Section 96 application, that the café’s continued trading beyond the approved hours of operation and the failure to provide evidence of noise attenuation measures and appropriate acoustic certification indicates a disregard to “fitting in” with the immediate locality and the noise impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents, is upheld.

 

If the Section 82A request is supported, it would effectively sanction a use that would be likely to have a further detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residents as well as breach a condition of consent (that is Condition No. 10) that was intended precisely to determine the acoustical impact of the development prior to any extension in hours of operation. As such, it would be inappropriate to support the Section 82A request in the absence of an acoustical report demonstrating compliance with the requirements of condition No. 10 and in the absence of results from a 12-months trial-period for the extended hours of operation recommended in Conditions Nos. 23 and 24. 

 

The restrictions applied collectively under conditions Nos. 1, 10, 23 and 24, of the consent are imposed on the proposed development to ensure the amenity of surrounding residents. These restrictions, on what is essentially an existing non-conforming use in a residential zone which is already detrimentally affected by noise from the existing operation, are reasonable and appropriate.

 

In relation to concerns raised in resident submissions regarding increased traffic and parking shortage as a result of extended hours of operation, this Section82A assessment supports the original DA and Section 96 assessment that the proposed extension in the hours of operation would have minimal impact on traffic and parking in the locality.

 

6.    CONCLUSION

 

This application has been reviewed taking into account the applicant’s reason for requesting the review. Given the matters addressed in this report, conditions Nos. 1, 10, 23 and 24 of development consent of 2 September 2002 should be confirmed.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.    THAT the determination of the Section 96 application to modify Development Consent No. 0434/2002 dated 14 January 2003, for 10-12 Bream Street, Coogee, be confirmed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID ONGKILI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 18/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

8 - 12 ASCOT STREET, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

17 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0955/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 995/02 for demolition of three existing dwellings and construction of three storey-multi unit housing development containing 24x1 bedroom dwelling with associated basement car parking 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 17 March 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans    

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING  

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0955/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of three existing dwellings and construction of three storey-multi unit housing development containing 24x1 bedroom dwelling with associated basement car parking

PROPERTY:

 8 - 12 ASCOT STREET, KENSINGTON

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Arttech Design & Construction Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting as the proposed development is valued at $2.5million.  An appeal has been lodged with the Land and Environment Court on the basis of a deemed refusal of the application.   The proposal does not comply with the floor area standard of the Randwick LEP 1998.  A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted by the applicant seeking approval for non-compliance with the floor area standard.  The proposed variation is not considered reasonable or necessary in the circumstances and the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

 

Manual calculations of the application drawings indicate that the proposal does not comply with the Randwick LEP 1998’s standard for the provision of landscaped area not located above podiums or excavated basement areas.  The applicant has not submitted an objection to the strict compliance with the standard pursuant to SEPP 1 and Council is unable to approve the application without first obtaining either confirmation of the proposal’s compliance or considering a suitable SEPP 1 objection to the standard demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 65.  The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with a number of the performance requirements and objectives of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP, principally those relating to site analysis, bulk and scale, building setbacks, solar access, amenity and barrier-free access. 

 

The proposal has not adequately addressed groundwater and flooding issues relating to the site, or demonstrated that the proposal does not constitute integrated development.  The proposal is excessive in bulk and exhibits a simplistic building form that is inappropriate for the site and its built form context.  The proposal comprises one-bedroom dwellings only and does not provide a dwelling mix suitable to the site or its social context.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to demolish the three existing dwellings on the site and to erect a three-storey multi-unit housing development containing 24 x one-bedroom units and basement car parking for 30 vehicles.  The proposal includes the removal of four trees from the rear of the site.

 

The proposed building comprises three above-ground levels with each level containing eight units.  Pedestrian access to the units from ground level is provided by two entry foyers located on the eastern side of the building.  The northern-most foyer entry provides stair access to the nine units fronting Ascot Street.  The southern-most foyer entry provides access to stairs and a lift linking the fifteen units located in the middle and rear sections of the building.  The lift also links these units to the basement car park.

 

Driveway access to the site is proposed from Ascot Street along the western side boundary.  Private courtyard areas are proposed for each ground floor unit. A landscaped common open space area is proposed at the rear of the building. Balcony areas are proposed for each of the first and second floor units.  

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Ascot Street approximately midway between Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue.  The site comprises three allotments at No. 8, 10 and 12 Ascot Street located opposite Kokoda Memorial Park.  The site adjoins land included in the Kensington Town Centre and is located in proximity to a number of heritage-listed buildings in Doncaster Avenue.

 

The site is slightly irregular in shape and has an area of 1,321.2m².  The site has a frontage to Ascot Street of 30.5m and a depth varying between 42.3m and 43.7m. The site is generally flat.  Access to the site is from Ascot Street.  The site currently contains seven trees, primarily at the rear of No. 8 Ascot Street.  The size and dimensions of the site provide no tangible constraints and are more than sufficient for development to achieve design quality in building configuration, orientation and scale. 

 

Existing buildings on the site comprise a single-storey semi-detached brick terrace house at No.8 Ascot Street and two freestanding single-storey brick terrace houses at No.10 and 12 Ascot Street.  The site is bounded to the east by a single-storey terrace house at No. 6 Ascot Street, which is attached to the existing dwelling on the site at No.8 Ascot Street.  The site is bounded to the west by a three-storey pre-WWII walk-up flat building at No.14 Ascot Street.  The site is bounded to the south by properties at No. 11 and 13 Bowral Street containing 1960s-1980s walk-up flat buildings with undercroft car parking. 

 

The southern side of Ascot Street contains a number of single-storey Federation terraces and bungalows that comprise a substantially intact and continuous built form interrupted only by the three-storey pre-WWII flat building adjoining the subject site at No. 14 Ascot Street.  Properties fronting Ascot Street immediately west of the subject site form part of “Block 03” as defined by the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

The northern side of Ascot Street is dominated by the open expanse of Kokoda Memorial Park.  A 1960s-1980s walk-up flat building with undercroft car parking is located further west on the northern side of Ascot Street.  Kokoda Memorial Park contains a children’s playground located directly opposite the subject site.  The subject site enjoys an outlook across the park towards development on the northern side of Goodwood Street.  A distinctive two-storey pre-WWII flat building fronting the northern side of Goodwood Street is a dominant visual feature in northern views across the park.  Correspondingly, the subject site forms a substantial part of the backdrop to views towards Ascot Street from Kokoda Memorial Park and across the park from Goodwood Street.

 

The western end of Ascot Street is framed by a series of two-storey Victorian terrace-style shops fronting Anzac Parade to the south of Ascot Street.  These are identified by the Kensington Town Centre DCP as being contributory to the town centre’s streetscape. 

 

The eastern end of Ascot Street is framed by Doncaster Avenue, which contains a number of heritage-listed buildings, including a series of eight Federation terraces located on the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue and south of the Ascot Road intersection (No. 68-82 Doncaster Avenue).  Randwick Racecourse forms the eastern extent of Ascot Street.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The properties no.8 and 12 Ascot Street have been subject to previous applications for alterations and additions to the existing single-storey dwellings.  Amended plans were submitted to Council on 6 February 2003 which increase the width of the driveway and raised the ground floor level of the building.  This report assesses the amended plans received by Council on 6 February 2003.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.  M. Ryan

1/11 Bowral Street

KENSINGTON   2033

 

Concerns:

 

The construction of 24 single bed units reeks of ghetto living in our area with the additional traffic pressure on streets that are over parked and over used particularly on Randwick race days.

 

The very concept of one-bed room units indicates the casual occupation of these units with a constant changeover of tenants.  The target tenants are to be students who will have noisy parties creating noise problems for older long-term residents.

 

Environmentally the construction of a three-story building will cause sunlight problems in our yard area, which is used constantly by all the occupiers of 11 Bowral St., and I am sure the proposed new building will present other problems with wind around the buildings.

 

Response:

 

·    The proposal contains the required number of on-site parking spaces.

·    The proposal does not contain an adequate mix of dwelling sizes and does not adequately respond to the site’s social context.

·    The proposal will reduce sunlight access to the communal open space areas of properties adjoining the site to the south at No. 11 and No. 13 Bowral Street.

·    The proposed building configuration results in an excessive building bulk and fails to distribute the building mass across the site in a manner that minimises visual and amenity impacts for the adjoining properties.

 

2.  J. Maloney

     6 Ascot Street

     KENSINGTON   2033

 

Concerns:

 

The development of 24 x (1) Bedroom low budget units show a lack of dwelling diversification for the area.  This type of development is aimed at the transient University population, rather than the more responsible permanent/family resident.

 

The architecture structure of the proposed building lacks any form of federation architecture that blends with the existing character of the area, which is not consistent with the councils theme of recapturing the vision of the Kensington area.

 

Unit verandah structures are absent of sufficient privacy screening to the surrounding residence.

 

The proposed height development will greatly affect both the winter and summer sunshine to my property especially the rear yard, which is already a flood affected area.

 

Demolition of 8 Ascot St attached to my property will cause damage, noise and pollution inconvenience.

 

Demolition of 8 Ascot St will leave my residence unsecured as a large part of the external wall of this property currently acts as part of the dividing fence.

 

Response:      

 

·    The proposal does not contain an adequate mix of dwelling sizes and does not adequately respond to the site’s social context. 

·    The proposed building scale, form and composition are singular in character and do not respond to the street context. 

·    Proposed above-ground balconies are sufficiently set back from the side boundaries to ensure acceptable levels of privacy for adjoining residents. 

·    It is apparent that the additional overshadowing will reduce daylight access to the internal living areas at the rear of No. 6 Ascot Street to substantially less than 3 hours per day in mid-winter.  The proposal will also substantially increase levels of afternoon overshadowing for the rear open space on the property. 

·    Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has advised of groundwater issues and these are detailed in Section 6.3.

 

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

The Building Code of Australia classifies the proposal as:

-    Class 2 - Residential Units, and

-    Class 7 - Basement 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

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has provided the following advice in relation to landscape:

 

Amended plans addressing the groundwater and flooding issues raised in our previous memo’s dated 14 and 24 February 2003 and have not been received and thus AIS Department conditions have not been issued for this development.

 

Should the EPCD Department or Council consider approving the application, the application should be referred back to the AIS Department so that appropriate conditions may be issued.

 

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

 

12 Ascot Street

a)   One Olea species (Olive Tree) located along the western property boundary between the existing dwelling and the fence. This tree is approximately 6 metres tall and in reasonable health, however, it is poorly located and also an environmental weed within the City of Randwick. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

b)   One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) located along the western property boundary between the existing dwelling and the fence. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall and in reasonable health, however, it is poorly located and also an environmental weed within the City of Randwick. As such permission should be granted for the removal of this tree.

 

10 Ascot Street

c)   One Melia azedarach (White Cedar) located along the eastern property boundary within the rear yard. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall and in average health. Permission should be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

d)   One Dead Tree located towards the rear property boundary. This tree is approximately 8 metres tall and permission should be granted for its removal.

 

8 Ascot Street

e)   Three Cupressus species (Cypress Pines) located within the rear yard, around the existing pool. These trees are between 8 and 10 metres tall but are poorly located hard up against the existing in ground pool. Two of the trees are shown for retention on the plans but it is considered that the excavation required for the removal of the pool will have an adverse effect upon the health of these trees. Permission should be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of three large replacement trees within the site.

f)    One Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located within the rear yard, around the existing pool. This palm is approximately 10 metres tall and in reasonable condition, however, it is not a significant specimen and as such permission should be granted for the removal of this palm.

g)   One Howea forsterana (Kentia Palm) located within the rear yard, around the existing pool. This palm is approximately 6 metres tall and in reasonable health however, it is not a significant specimen and as such permission should be granted for the removal of this palm.

 

6.3  Drainage Issues

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has provided the following advice in relation to flooding:

 

The subject development site is located in an area that may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

To minimise the potential for stormwater to enter the subject development, the applicant shall either:

 

1.  Raise the ground floor levels to a minimum RL 27.85 (AHD) (.e. a minimum of 450mm above the back of the footpath along the site frontage) and construct a high point in the driveway (and all other access points to the basement carpark) to at least RL 27.60 (AHD).

 

OR

 

2.  Undertake a flood study to determine accurate 1 in 100 year flood levels for the site and raise the floor level of all habitable and storage areas a minimum of 300mm above these levels and construct a high point in the driveway (and all other access points to the basement carpark) at least 150mm above the flood levels.

 

Amended plans showing the floor levels and driveway being raised to the required levels (in accordance with either point 1 or 2 above) shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to development consent being issued.  It is noted that the driveway must match the back of the existing footpath at the property boundary with the required high point being located within the property.

 

To minimise stormwater runoff from the site, the new driveway and exterior paving within the development site shall be constructed with a permeable brick paving or other similar material that will allow stormwater to infiltrate to ground (eg Rocla permeable paving).

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has provided the following advice in relation to groundwater:

 

The information in the geotechnical report does not adequately address the concerns regarding groundwater on the site.

 

In the absence of any evidence to show that the groundwater table is more than 3 metres below ground level, it can only assumed that groundwater is at 3 metres (where hole collapse occurred).  Consequently, any fluctuation in the groundwater table may result in water entering the basement excavation (which is understood to extend some 3 metres below ground level) and referral to the DLWC as integrated development may be required.

 

It is noted that the geotechnical investigation was undertaken after a period of severe drought, and as indicated in the geotech report, the groundwater level may rise following periods of heavy rainfall.

 

Given that groundwater may experience fluctuations of up to some 2 metres, it is suggested that the applicant should be requested to undertake further testing on the site to determine whether groundwater is present within 2 metres of the base of the proposed basement excavation (i.e. within 5 metres from ground level).

 

If groundwater is encountered, it is recommended that the EPCD Department liaise with the DLWC to determine whether referral as integrated development is required.

 

6.4  Traffic/Parking Issues

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has provided the following advice:

 

To prevent queuing of vehicles in Ascot Street, the clear width of the internal driveway shall be at least 5 metres for the first 5 metres within the property.  The amended plans shall show compliance with this requirement.  It is recommended that the width of the internal driveway be kept at 5 metres for the full length of the access ramp.

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has advised that amended plans submitted by the applicant dated 5 February 2003 (Issue B) show the width of the driveway being increased to 5 metres for the first 5 metres within the property boundary and adequately address the vehicular access issues raised.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A master plan is not required as the site is less than 4,000m² 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 (SEPP 1)

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

-     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

-     Building Code of Australia

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 – Min. Lot Size

N/A

1,321.2m²

N/A

31 - Landscape Area

 

 

 

Clause 31(2)

50% of site area (660.6m²)

53% (698.8m²)

Yes

Clause 31(3)

Maximum 50% (330.3m²) of the landscaped area requirement over podiums or excavated basement areas

52% (342.9m²)

No

32 – FSR

0.9:1 (1,189.1m²)

1.17:1 (1,544.2m²)

No

33 - Building Height

 

 

 

Clause 33(2)

12m building height

10m

Yes

Clause 33(4)

10m external wall height

 

10m

 

Yes

 

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

 

The proposal is defined as “residential flat development” for the purposes of SEPP 65.   Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles described in the SEPP.  An evaluation of the design quality of the proposal in accordance with the design quality principles is included below.

 

Principle 1:     Context

 

Good design responds and contributes to its context.  Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

 

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, desired future character as stated in planning and design policies.  New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

 

The site forms part of a locality currently undergoing transition, however the surrounding built form context exhibits a number of building types and ages that contribute to the heritage and streetscape qualities of locality. 

 

Principal building types in the immediate locality include:

·    Two-storey Victorian terrace-style shops fronting Anzac Parade and forming part of the Kensington Town Centre;

·    Single-storey Federation terraces and semis;

·    Federation bungalows;

·    Pre-WWII flat buildings, and

·    1960s-1980s walk-up flat buildings.

 

A number of 1960s-1980s walk-up flat buildings are located throughout the surrounding area in Doncaster Avenue, Goodwood Street to the north and Bowral Street to the south.  Buildings of this style do not currently form an integral part of the Ascot street character and typically display poor levels of design quality in terms of amenity, energy performance, daylight access and aesthetics.  Buildings of this style are not considered to provide desirable reference points in determining a desirable character for infill development on the subject site.

 

Key built features of residential development on the southern side of Ascot Street include:

·    Consistent front setbacks;

·    Pitched roof forms that help to define the overall proportions and alleviate the built mass of individual buildings;

·    A regular and substantially continuous pattern and rhythm of dwelling entries, façade compositions and low-scale front fences;

·    Window, veranda and façade elements that avoid large expanses of walls and provide buildings with a human scale when viewed from the street;

·    Buildings that clearly express base, middle and top sections to express the overall building proportions;

·    Buildings that express their internal layout and use, in particular the extent of individual dwellings, through elements such as party walls, and

·    Restrained building footprints with sufficient site areas for substantial mature planting and tree growth at the rear of properties.

 

The proposal almost completely fails to respond to the key built features of its streetscape context.  The proposed façade and frontage treatment are inconsistent with the established pattern of development on the southern side of Ascot Street.  The proposed development frontage discontinues the pattern of dwelling and building entries along the street.  The absence of individual dwelling entries to the street at ground level, the proposed unbroken line of planter bed along the front boundary and the proposed entry portico at the front boundary are singular in character and unrepresentative of the existing street context.

 

The proposed façade composition is unacceptably bland and visually overbearing.  When compared to the established street context, the façade displays an inappropriate mix of window sizes, disproportionate areas of blank space and no recognisable architectural style. 

 

The building walls are set back from the street frontage further than existing buildings in the street, compounding the proposal’s incompatibility with its immediate built form context.  The proposal comprises a flat-pitched roof form that is uncharacteristic of the street context and fails to optimise potential opportunities for solar energy collection.  Unlike other dominant building forms in Ascot Street, the proposed building fails to clearly define base, middle and top sections, resulting in an undesirably bulky building form and substantially disrupting the established pattern of development on the southern side of Ascot Street. 

 

Key natural features include the site’s north-south orientation, relatively flat topography and groundwater constraints.  The proposed building configuration represents a simplistic response to the favourable site area dimensions.  The site is generally flat and the topography presents no constraints to development.  The resulting configuration of building form over the site exhibits an excessive visual bulk.  The building configuration also fails to respond to opportunities to achieve a more broken up building form that would allow a greater number of dwellings at the middle and rear of the site to benefit from the site’s northern orientation and allow a more favourable consolidation of landscaped area on the site.  Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services has advised that the documentation included with the application does not adequately address groundwater issues on the site and further testing is required.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of its natural and built form contexts and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 2:     Scale

 

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

 

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development.  In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposed building exhibits an excessive building bulk that is disproportionate with the site dimensions and other building forms within Ascot Street.  The proposed design comprises an unnecessarily expansive distribution of the building over the site, primarily the result of a simplistic block configuration.  The proposal fails to respond to the substantial opportunities afforded by the site’s favourable area, dimensions and topography to achieve a more broken up building configuration able to minimise the overshadowing and visual amenity impacts for neighbouring properties, maximise the ability of dwellings at the middle and rear of the site to benefit from the site’s favourable northern orientation and achieve a higher quality amenity and outlook for both dwellings and landscaped areas. 

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of its scale and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 3:     Built form

 

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

The site has sufficient dimensions and area to allow a significant degree of   flexibility in the configuration of building forms within the applicable development standards.  The proposed design demonstrates a simplistic design based upon achieving the maximum density of dwellings at the expense of other design considerations.  The proposed design demonstrates little if any attempt to achieve a configuration of building forms over the site that optimise design quality in terms of building bulk and scale, daylight access, amenity, orientation, streetscape and the consolidation of quality landscaped areas. 

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of its built form and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 4:     Density

 

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

 

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density.  Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

 

The proposal seeks to achieve a relatively high density of dwellings on the site. While the site is in proximity to the Kensington Town Centre, it is considered that the proposed dwelling density is unacceptably high and is the result of an excessive gross floor area and a failure to provide a mix of dwelling types suitable to the locality. 

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of its density and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 5:     Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout full life cycle, including construction.

 

Sustainability is integral to the design process.  Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

 

The proposed building configuration fails to adequately respond to the opportunities provided by the generous site size and dimensions for optimising the provision of solar access and natural ventilation to individual dwellings.  The proposal fails to provide sufficient modulation in building form across the site in order to achieve narrower building forms conducive to natural ventilation and sunlight access to both dwellings and landscaped areas. 

 

The proposal fails to provide an acceptable proportion of non-excavated landscaped area suitable for the natural infiltration of water runoff. 

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of energy, resource and water efficiency and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 6:     Landscape

 

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

 

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways.  It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values.  It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

 

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbour’s amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

 

The proposed landscape design fails to maintain the continuity of development within the Ascot Street streetscape.  The proposed configuration of communal open space and private courtyard areas within the front setback interrupts the pattern of continuous dwelling entries to the Street and is aesthetically uncharacteristic of the street context.

 

The proposed building form fails to optimise the consolidation of quality landscaped areas within the site.  This stems from the building’s excessive site coverage and lack of appropriate modulation across the site.  The proposal fails to provide an acceptable proportion of non-excavated landscaped area in accordance with the Council’s requirements.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of landscape and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 7:     Amenity

 

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

 

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

The proposal entails substantial overshadowing and visual amenity impacts for neighbouring dwellings.  The proposed design fails to demonstrate adequate consideration of opportunities to achieve a building form that optimises the amenity of dwellings on the site and on adjoining properties.  The proposed building configuration comprises a continuous mass across the site and does not optimise the substantial opportunities afforded by the favourable site conditions to optimise the exposure of dwellings at the middle and rear of the site to the site’s northern orientation.  The simplistic building configuration also fails to optimise opportunities to maximise the quality of natural ventilation within dwellings. 

 

The proposal fails to provide sufficient storage space and does not adequately identify those dwellings suitable for barrier-free access in accordance with the Council’s requirements.  The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of amenity and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 8:     Safety and security

 

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

 

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

 

The upper levels of the proposed building enjoy an outlook over Ascot Street and Kokoda Memorial Park and facilitate casual surveillance of the public domain.  The proposed location of pedestrian building entries along the side of the building hinders the attainment of legible pedestrian access to the building and departs from the established pattern of dwelling entries within the streetscape.  The proposal would significantly benefit from the provision of individual dwelling entries or a single building entry on the Ascot Street frontage. 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of safety and security and does not satisfy the aims of SEPP 65.

Principle 9:     Social dimensions

 

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

 

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

 

The proposal provides only one-bedroom dwellings and fails to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes.   The site is of sufficient size to accommodate a range of dwelling sizes.  The site’s proximity to the Kensington Town Centre implies that as broad a mix of dwelling sizes as possible should be pursued for the site to ensure equitable access to transport, services and facilities.  The lack of dwelling mix undermines the ability of the proposal to meet a range of housing needs, promote equitable access to housing for different household types and assist in maintaining housing affordability within the locality.  The proposed one-dimensional nature of dwelling sizes significantly hinders the proposal’s ability to accommodate lifetime needs for occupants.  The proposed lack of dwelling mix is considered to be unacceptable in the local context.

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of its social dimensions and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

Principle 10:   Aesthetics

 

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development.  Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposed building fails to achieve quality aesthetics.  Principal areas of poor design quality include:

·    The bulk of the proposed building is excessive and results in an overbearing and inappropriate distribution of building form over the site;

·    The building form is excessive in scale and simplistic in design and fails to respond to desirable characteristics of the predominant building forms of the street and locality,

·    The proposed façade composition and external finishes are bland and overbearing and fail to respond to desirable elements within the surrounding built form context and fail to maintain an appropriate level of cohesiveness within the streetscape, and

·    The proposed front boundary treatment, entry portico, front setbacks and absence of ground floor dwelling entries to the street, which are inconsistent with the desirable elements of the established street context. 

 

The proposal fails to demonstrate design quality in terms of aesthetics and fails to satisfy the objectives of SEPP 65.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 

site planning

P1  All development applications must be accompanied by a Site Analysis Plan which identifies development opportunities and constraints for the site.  The plan is to demonstrate that these factors have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas and dimensions to allow for the satisfactory siting of buildings and ensure adequate separation between buildings.

Building design is related to the size, shape and dimensions of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Sites are of a regular shape and have a frontage of at least 20m.

 

Does not comply

The proposal fails to demonstrate that it has adequately identified and responded to the opportunities and constraints presented by:

·    Site features and orientation;

·    Principles of ecologically sustainable development;

·    Form and style of existing buildings on the site and in the local area;

·    Solar access and access to ventilating breezes;

·    Microclimate;

·    Drainage, and

·    Access.

The proposal does not achieve the DCP’s objectives for site planning, as it fails to demonstrate that:

·    local site conditions, positive attributes, constraints and opportunities have been taken into account in the design of the development;

·    the relationship of the proposed development to adjoining development has been considered in the design process and negative impacts minimised, and

·    the design of the proposed development meets the lifetime needs of the community, including families, the elderly and people with a disability.

Refer to sections 6.4, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.4 and 9.5.

 

Does not comply

The site has a regular shape and a street frontage of 30.5m and satisfies the preferred solution of S2. However, the proposed building design fails to relate to the site’s shape, size and dimensions in a manner that satisfies the DCP’s objectives for site planning.

Refer to sections 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.4 and 9.5.

building height

P1  Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on the streetscape or adjoining properties, particularly in relation to privacy, solar access and building bulk.
 
 

 

Does not comply

The proposal complies with the external wall height standard of the Randwick LEP 1998, however the simplistic configuration of the building, inappropriate street frontage and lack of variation in height across the site result in an excessive building bulk and substantial overshadowing impacts for adjoining properties.

 

P2 Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on adjoining properties and the streetscape.
 

 

Does not comply

The proposal fails to vary the massing and height of development across the site in a manner that minimises overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties and achieves an appropriate building bulk within the streetscape.

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1 The front setback is determined by the existing and desired character of the streetscape.

The setback is to be consistent with the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The proposal fails to successfully identify and respond to desirable characteristics of the established streetscape.  The proposed front building setback is inconsistent with the setbacks of adjoining development and fails to maintain the continuity of built form within the streetscape. 

Refer to section 9.2.

 

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2  Buildings are set back from the side boundary to ensure that:

·    there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

·    reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.

·    opportunities for landscaping and private open space are provided.

·    streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average setback (measured for the length of the building along that boundary) of 5 metres from any side boundary.

No part of the building is closer than 3.5 metres from any side boundary. 

The maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres.  The minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Eastern side– Ground floor

Complies

·    Average setback – 5.9m

·    Minimum setback - 4.0m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 9.4m.

 

Eastern side– First & second floors

Complies

·    Average setback - 5.4m

·    Minimum setback - 4.0m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 8.3m.

 

Western side– Ground floor

Does not comply

·    Average setback - 6.0m.

·    Minimum setback - 4.0m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 12.0m.

 

Western side– First & second floors

Complies

·    Average setback – 5.6m Minimum setback - 4.0m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall - 8.3m.

 

 

Rear Boundary Setbacks

P3 Buildings are set back from the rear boundary to ensure that:

·    there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing.

·    reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided.

·    opportunities for landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces are provided.

 

Buildings are built across a site rather than down its length.

·   

 

S3  Zone 2C

Buildings (including balconies) maintain a minimum average setback (measured for the length of the building along that boundary) of 8 metres from the rear boundary.

No part of the building is closer than 6 metres from the rear boundary. 

The maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10 metres.  The minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Ground floor

Does not comply

·    Average setback  - 8.9m.

·    Minimum setback – 7.6m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 18.5.

 

First  & second floors

Does not comply

·    Average setback  - 7.4m.

·    Minimum setback – 5.8m.

·    Maximum length of unarticulated wall – 18.5m.

Refer to Section 9.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed building extends along much of the site’s length, leading to an excessive building bulk.  The proposed building form and configuration are simplistic and fail to optimise opportunities to break up the building’s mass, optimise opportunities for natural ventilation and daylight access to dwellings and consolidate quality landscaped areas at ground level.

 

 

General

P4 The provision of eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection devices demonstrates that no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties will occur.

 

 

S4  Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection devices may encroach no more than  25% of the Preferred Solution for the building setback at that point.

 

 

Complies

DENSITY

P1  Building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms and minimises impact of building bulk on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape.

 

Does not comply

The proposed building bulk is excessive and disproportionate with the streetscape and other development in the locality.

Refer to Section 9.5.

 

FENCES

P1 Front fences integrate with the local streetscape, complement the architectural design of the building and fence design features of the locality.

Entrances to the site and buildings are highlighted.

Planting is used to soften impacts of front fences and provide additional privacy.

 

S1  Solid front fences facing the street are no higher than 1.2 metres. This may be increased to 1.8 metres where the fence has openings that make it at least 50 % transparent.

 

Does not comply

A 0.6m high planter bed and 0.9m high retaining wall are proposed for the site’s Ascot Street frontage.  The proposed planter bed runs along the entire frontage without interruption.  The proposed boundary treatment is inappropriate as:

·    the proposed planter bed and fence does not provide for individual entries to the street for ground floor units fronting Ascot Street and fails to maintain the rhythm and pattern of openings into the street established by the existing buildings on the site and the adjoining terrace houses to the east;

·    the style of fence, comprising an unbroken line of planter bed, does not match other fence styles within the street, and

·    the proposed entry portico is singular in character and is a feature not incorporated by other development in the street.

 

LANDSCAPEAND private OPEN SPACE

Landscaped Area

P1   Landscaped areas are of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for  recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

 

 

P2  Landscaped areas around flat buildings are treated as communal open space for use by all residents of development.  Common open space is not divided up and allocated to individual dwellings within a development to the exclusion of other users on upper levels.

 

 

S1  The minimum dimension for an area of land included in calculations for the  landscaped area requirements is  2 metres.

 

Complies

Landscaped areas and terraces to the front, rear and sides of the proposed building have dimensions greater than 2m.

 

 

Complies

The proposal provides a mix of communal open space and private open space at ground level. 

 

 

Private Open Space

P3    Private open space:

·    provides privacy for its users;

·    is readily accessible from the main living areas of the dwelling so that it can become an extension of the dwelling,

·    provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and living.

 

P4 Private open space may only be provided between the front of the building and the street where building setback and front fence design achieve a sympathetic relationship with the street.

 

 

 

Complies

Private open space areas are provided to all ground floor units.  The areas are directly accessible from internal living areas and are of sufficient size and dimensions to provide outdoor recreation and living opportunities.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The provision of private open space within the street frontage is appropriate in the street context, however the proposed frontage treatment and configuration of communal open space and  private courtyards within the front setback is out of character with the established pattern of ground floor dwelling entries along the southern side of Ascot Street.

 

Flats and apartments

P6  Each dwellings has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from within the dwelling.

 

 

S6  Private open space for flats and apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

 

Complies

The proposal also provides private courtyards to each of the ground floor units. Substantial balcony areas are to be provided off the living rooms of all proposed first and second floor apartments.  All proposed courtyards and balconies have minimum areas and dimensions sufficient to satisfy the numeric requirements of S2.

 

PRIVACY

Visual Privacy

P1  Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows in adjoining dwellings and areas of private open space (whether part of the development or on adjoining properties).

 

 

 

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Acoustic Privacy

P3  Building layout and design minimises transmission of noise.  Development is designed to separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities.

 

 

 

S1  Where there is a horizontal separation of less than 10 metres between windows, they should be offset, angled or screened to reduce potential privacy impacts.

A sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level provides satisfactory protection for overlooking.

 

 

 

 

 

S4  Walls and floors between dwellings are constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia regarding sound transmission and insulation.

 

 

Complies

Refer to Section 9.3.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

VIEW SHARING

 

P1  The design and location of buildings takes existing topography, vegetation and surrounding development into account as a basis assessing effect on view.

 

 

 

 

P2  Development minimises effects on views and demonstrates steps that have been taken to mitigate view loss, in particular view loss of significant features such as the ocean, coastline, nearby open space areas and significant landmarks or buildings.

 

P3  Buildings and dwellings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The subject site forms a substantial proportion of the Ascot Road streetscape and a backdrop to views towards Ascot Street from Kokoda Memorial Park and across the park from Goodwood Street to the north.

Refer to Section 9.3.3.

 

Complies

The proposal will not reduce significant views enjoyed from adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1  The design, orientation, siting and siting of new buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

 

 

P1.1   Solar access to existing solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each day, throughout the year.

 

P1.2  Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

P1.3  At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day.

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The proposed building design displays an excessive bulk and simplistic distribution of building form across the site that fails to minimise the loss of solar access to the open space areas of neighbouring properties.

Refer to Section 9.3.1.

 

Complies

The proposal does not inhibit solar access to any existing solar collectors on adjacent buildings.

 

 

 

Does not comply

Refer to Section 9.3.1.

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

Refer to Section 9.3.1.

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

P4  Buildings and outdoor spaces are designed to protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather conditions.

·    Living areas are orientated to the north with access to winter sun and summer shade.

·    Larger windows are located on the north side where they are exposed to the lower winter sun, but can be shaded by roof eaves, verandahs or balconies from high summer sun.  Windows are protected with effective shading devices such as verandahs, hoods and external screens.

 

P5  Buildings have an area of roof with appropriate orientation and pitch, suitable for the installation of solar collectors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P7  Adequate space is provided for outdoor clothes drying.

 

 

 

 

S4  75% of dwellings in a development achieve 3.5 star rating by NatHERS or equivalent and no dwelling achieves less than 3 stars, unless the site analysis can demonstrate that this is not achievable on a particular site and an Energy Performance Statement demonstrates that the design of the dwelling units satisfies the intent of these objectives and performance criteria.

The NatHERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

S5  Adequate roof area should be provided facing between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west of north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal is provided for the installation of solar collectors.

 

 

Does not comply

The proposal satisfies the preferred solution of S4.  Sixteen of the proposed 24 dwellings achieve a NatHERS rating of 4 stars or higher.  The remaining eight dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5 stars.

The proposed building configuration is simplistic and fails to take advantage of opportunities to maximise the northern orientation of dwellings on the site.  While meeting the preferred solution of S4, the proposal fails to fully satisfy the performance requirements of P4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The proposed building exhibits a flat roof design that fails to provide opportunities for the provision of solar collectors in accordance with the preferred solution of S5.

 

 

 

 

Complies

Adequate space for outdoor clothes drying is provided within private courtyards and balconies for each dwelling.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Building and landscaping design allows casual surveillance of footpaths and driveways.

 

 

P2  Approaches to the site and the entries of each dwelling are visible from within that dwelling.

 

P3  High walls and parking structures which obstruct views into the development are avoided.

 

P4  Resident car parking are equipped with security grilles or doors.

 

 

 

 

 

P5  Visitor parking spaces are clearly identifiable and located to facilitate surveillance by some units.

 

P6  Visitor entry to all units and internal common areas is controlled by intercom and remote locking systems.

 

 

Complies

Windows and balconies overlook street and entry areas, and no front fencing is proposed allow surveillance.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

The provision of a security roller shutter with intercom system to the basement car park can be required as a condition of development consent.

 

 

Not applicable

All on-site parking is to be located and secured within the proposed basement car park.

 

Complies

The provision of remote locking systems can be required as a condition of consent.

 

PARKING

P1  Garages and parking structures are sited and designed to not dominate the street frontage by:

·    minimising frontage width;

·    ensuring that the form, materials and detailing complement the associated building;

·    being excavated or setback further from the street than the associated building.

 

P2  The design of parking areas gives consideration to the need to provide parking spaces capable of use by people with a disability.

 

 

 

P3  Accessible, safe and secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

Complies

All parking is provided at a basement level with a single entry point from the Ascot Street frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply
The proposal is required to provide one car space designed for people with a disability.  A lift provides access between the basement car park and the fifteen  units at the rear of the building.
Refer to Barrier-Free Access.

 

Complies

A bicycle storeroom is proposed within the basement car park.

DRIVE-WAYS AND turning AREAS

P1  Site planning and building layout minimise the amount of driveways and manoeuvring areas.

 

P2  Vehicles are able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction at all times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  The alignment of driveways and access roads is varied to create visual interest and avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

P4  Clearance between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces is of sufficient width to enable landscaping and screen planting.

 

 

 

P5  Surface materials and external finishes are consistent and compatible with those used throughout the development.

 

 

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients are designed for vehicle and pedestrian safety.  Potential for vehicles to scrape at gradient changes is avoided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Parking layout ensures that vehicles are able to enter parking spaces in a single turning movement and leave the space in no more than 2 turning movements.

 

S3  Long sections of driveways provide passing bays to allow for access and circulation of vehicles.

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and are located at least 1 metre from any side or rear boundary fence.

 

 

 

 

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete are to be avoided.

 

 

 

 

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6.  For long ramps (greater than 20 m) a maximum gradient of 1 in 5 can be used with suitable transition grades as outlined in Council’s Parking DCP.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

Passing bays are not required due to length of proposed driveway.

 

 

Does not comply

The proposed driveway width is 3.5m wide (5.0m wide for first 5.0m into the site) and is satisfactory.  However, the driveway is set back only 0.5m from the western side boundary and provides insufficient space for landscaping along this section of the boundary.

 

Complies

Driveway will be required to be constructed of a suitable permeable brick paving or similar material to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground in accordance with the advice of Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services.

 

Complies

STORAGE

P1  Development provides for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling.

S1  10m² of storage space is provided for each dwelling with a minimum clearance height of 2.1m.

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area of that dwelling.

Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub-floor areas, or attached to garages.

 

Does not comply

The preferred solution of S1 requires the provision of storage space for 24 dwellings.  The proposal includes separate storage areas within the basement car park for eighteen dwellings only.  These range in size from 1.3m² to 2.7m².  No designated storage space is provided within the proposed dwellings.  The proposal fails to satisfy the performance requirement of P1 and the DCP’s objective for storage.

 

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

P1  Design must address the provision of access for people with special access needs.

 

 

P2  Access for people with a disability is provided to and within one dwelling at the following rates:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Each dwelling that is designed for people with a disability has a corresponding parking space designed for people with a disability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  All development which provides a passenger lift provides access for people with a disability to all common foyer and parking areas.

S1  Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply

The proposal contains 24 dwellings and is required to provide at least one dwelling designed to provide access for people with a disability.  The proposal does not identify a dwelling designed for barrier-free access and does not demonstrate compliance with P2 or the DCP’s objectives for barrier-free access.

 

Does not comply

The proposal is required to provide at least one on-site parking space designed for people with a disability.  A designated disabled space is provided within the basement car park, however this also doubles as the designated car wash bay and is of insufficient dimensions to satisfy P3. 

 

Complies

The proposal includes lift access between the basement car park and the fifteen dwellings located on the ground, first and second floors at the rear of the building. 

UTILITIES/ SITE FACILITIES

P7  An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

 

Complies

WASTE

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities are provided for each dwelling.

 

 

 

P2  Waste storage facilities are provided either as a centralised garbage/recycling room accessible to garbage compactors or in a facility where bins can be easily wheeled to the street for collection.  The facilities are of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

P3  The location and design of waste collection facilities complements the design of the development and is not visually obtrusive in the streetscape or from any public places.

 

S1  Each dwelling has a waste storage cupboard in the kitchen sufficient to enable separation of recyclable material.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Waste facilities should not be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

Complies

The provision of waste storage cupboards can be required as a condition of consent.

 

 

 

Complies

The proposal includes a garbage/recycling room within the basement car park.  The storage room provides sufficient storage for 24 x 240L bins.  The applicant has undertaken that an appointed caretaker will wheel bins to and from the garbage/recycling room and the kerbside collection point.

 

 

 

 

Complies

The proposed garbage/recycling room will not be visible from the street.

HERITAGE

P1  The design and construction of new development:

·    complements the architectural character of any adjacent heritage item or the important characteristics of the heritage conservation area;

·    does not dominate or overwhelm a conservation area or a particular heritage item in terms of its scale and proportions;

·    retains the identified significance of the heritage item and/or heritage conservation area;

·    pays particular attention to the nature of design elements;

·    complements but does not mimic the design features of the heritage item.

 

P2  In any development adjacent to or in the vicinity of heritage buildings, the significance and visual prominence of the heritage buildings is respected.

 

 

Complies

The proposal is not located within a heritage conservation area and does not adjoin any heritage items.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

The proposal is in proximity to a row of eight heritage-listed  single-storey Federation terrace houses on the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue.  These extend south from the Ascot Street intersection.  The Kensington Public School contains a number of buildings of heritage significance and is located south of the site on the corner of Bowral Street and Doncaster Avenue.

 

 

b.     Development Control Plan - Parking

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

Car Parking

(a)   Number of spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Parking layout

 

 

 

 

(c) Bicycle Storage

 

 

1 space per dwelling

(24 spaces)

 

1vistor space per 4 dwellings

(6 visitor spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 30

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

(10 bicycle spaces)

 

24 spaces

 

 

6 spaces

 

 

 

30 SPACES

 

 

Unenclosed spaces 2.5m x 5.5m minimum

End bay spaces 3.0m x 5.5m minimum.

 

Common storeroom provided for units within basement car park that may be used for bicycle storage.

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

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       Randwick LEP 1998

 

            9.1.1    Landscaped Area

     

Clause 31(2) of the LEP 1998 requires a minimum of 50% of the site area to be provided as landscaped area.  Clause 31(3) of the LEP 1998 requires that areas over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements. 

 

The application drawings do not provide sufficient dimensions to verify the applicant’s landscaped area calculations.  Manual calculations undertaken as part of the assessment indicate that the landscaped area provided in the proposal is 689.8m² or 53% of the site area (compared to 733.7m² or 55% of the site area as stated in the application).  On the basis of the manual calculations, the proposal complies with Clause 31(2).

 

The manual calculations indicate that the amount of proposed landscaped area not located over podiums or excavated basement areas is 317.7m² or 48% of the landscaped area requirements (compared to 338.5m² or 51% of the landscaped area requirements as stated in the application).  On the basis of the manual calculations the proposal fails to comply with the development standard of Clause 31(3).  Council is unable to approve the development proposal without obtaining either verification of the proposal’s compliance with Clause 31(3) or approving an appropriate SEPP 1 objection to justify the non-compliance.

 

9.1.2    Floor Area

 

Clause 32 of the LEP 1998 establishes a maximum FSR for the site of 0.9:1 (or a gross floor area of 1,189.1m²).  The proposed development exceeds the LEP’s development standard and the applicant has submitted an objection to the strict compliance with the standard pursuant to SEPP 1.

 

The SEPP 1 objection submitted with the application is based on a stated FSR for the development of 1.05:1 (or a gross floor area of 1,396.6m²).  Manual calculations based on the application drawings estimate the proposed FSR to be 1.17:1 (or a gross floor area of 1,544.2m²).

 

The SEPP 1 objection submitted with the application argues that strict compliance with the FSR standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case on the following grounds:

 

SEPP 1:       The proposed development is of a height, size, bulk and external appearance that are in keeping with the multi-unit housing in this locality.  The proposed building has been designed to relate to the scale and desired future character of the locality and to maintain the existing pattern of street setbacks.

 

Response:    The proposal does not display a height, size, bulk or external appearance that are in keeping with residential building forms in the locality.  The surrounding streets exhibit a number of building types and styles.  The proposal fails to maintain the rhythm, pattern or proportions of façade compositions and dwelling entries within the Ascot Street streetscape, despite the fact that this could be readily achieved through the use of a more sympathetic design approach.  The resulting external appearance is singular in character and exhibits poor design quality in terms of attaining an appropriate development fit within the streetscape. 

 

The proposed building design is simplistic and does not reflect the opportunities available on the large site to distribute building mass across the site in a manner that would achieve a more suitable standard of design quality.  As a result, the proposed building bulk and scale are excessive and out of proportion with the site area and dimensions when compared to other development in Ascot Street and the locality. 

The excessive scale is readily apparent across the site when viewed from street level.  The simplistic building form unnecessarily constrains the proposal’s ability to optimise amenity for both potential occupants of the proposed building and neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposal fails to maintain the established pattern of front setbacks along the southern side of Ascot Street.  The proposed front setback and boundary treatment are singular in character, interrupt the established pattern of individual dwelling entries to Ascot Street and fail to correspond with other developments in the streetscape.

 

SEPP 1:        The proposal is a contemporary design that features parapet walls and a flat roof, thereby creating a building that is lower in height than adjacent residential flat buildings including those immediately adjoining to the west and to the rear.  It is considered to provide an appropriate built form that provides a building of dimensions and massing that is generally wider but lower in height than other residential flat buildings in the immediate locality.  The proportion of the site to be landscaped exceeds the requirements of Council’s DCP – Multi-unit Housing.

 

Response:   The proposed building design and mass are out of character with other building forms in the Ascot Street streetscape.  Manual calculations carried out as part of the assessment indicate that the proposal does not include the required proportion of non-excavated landscaped area.

 

SEPP 1:        The proposed development has been sited to protect, as far as practicable, the privacy and solar access of adjoining buildings.  The orientation of dwellings, location of windows and proposed landscaping all serve to minimize loss of privacy between adjacent dwellings.  Similarly, the amount of shadow caused by the proposed development is not considered to be significant given that much of the shadow falls within the subject property with only limited shadow impacts on adjacent residential properties.  Only two adjoining buildings will be affected by shadowing from the proposed development, details of which are contained in the shadow diagrams and Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application.

 

Response:   The proposed building design does not, as far as practicable, protect the privacy and solar access of adjoining properties.  While the potential privacy impacts of the proposal are considered to be acceptable, the proposed building design implies a degree of overshadowing and aesthetic intrusion for adjoining properties that is unnecessary given the substantial opportunities for sensitive site planning afforded by site’s favourable size, dimensions and topography. 

 

The proposed building will significantly increase levels of overshadowing to the principal open space areas of adjoining properties.  While some increase in the degree of overshadowing may reasonably be expected from the redevelopment of the site, it is considered that the proposed design has failed to adequately respond to the site opportunities in a manner that reduces the amenity impacts for the neighbouring properties.

 

SEPP 1:        Accordingly, notwithstanding exceedence of the FSR standard, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the FSR standard contained in the planning instrument.  In the circumstances of the case, the SEPP No. 1 Objection for the FSR non-compliance is considered to be well founded.

 

Response:   The stated purpose of the FSR standard is:

 

To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help 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 FSR is the result of a simplistic building design that fails to adequately respond to the opportunities for sensitive site planning and quality design afforded by the site’s favourable size, dimensions, topography and orientation.  The proposal exhibits a building bulk that is excessive in the street context and implies and undesirable level of overshadowing and visual intrusion for neighbouring properties.  The proposal does not represent a reasonable level of development and does not satisfy the FSR standard’s purpose.  The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and the proposed non-compliance with the FSR standard is not supported.

 

9.2       Building Setbacks

 

The proposed building fails to comply with the front, side and rear boundary setback requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. 

 

The proposal fails to provide a front setback that is consistent with either the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along Ascot Street.  The proposed front setback and frontage treatment are inconsistent with the desirable elements of the established street context and are unacceptable.

 

The western side elevation of the proposed building does not comply with the articulation requirement of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP’s preferred solution.  While it is considered that the proposed building provides suitable articulation along the side boundary setbacks in accordance with the DCP’s provisions, the configuration of the building, which comprises a continuous building form down the length of the site, is considered to be unacceptable in the circumstances.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the DCP’s performance requirements for rear boundary setbacks.  The rear elevation of the proposed building fail to achieve an adequate level of articulation.  The first and second floors of the building also fail to satisfy the numeric requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP’s preferred solutions for minimum average setback and minimum setback.  The proposed setbacks for the first and second floors of the building are considered to be unacceptable in the circumstances as the non-compliance increases the level of overshadowing for adjoining properties and add to the perceived excessive bulk of the building.

 

9.3       Amenity Impacts

 

The proposal displays a building bulk that is excessive in the streetscape context and entails an unnecessary degree of aesthetic intrusion for adjoining properties.  The excessive scale and bulk of the proposed building is the result of a simplistic design that fails to adequately respond to the site qualities.  While the proposed building configuration maintains acceptable levels of privacy for adjoining properties, it entails an unnecessary degree of aesthetic intrusion for adjoining properties.  The proposed building configuration also fails to take advantage of opportunities provided by the site’s favourable area, dimensions, topography and orientation to maximise the internal amenity of dwellings at the middle and rear of the site and to maximise the consolidation and quality of landscaped areas on the site.  In the circumstances, the proposed building bulk and configuration do not adequately respond to opportunities to protect the amenity of adjoining properties, the streetscape, or maximise the amenity of new dwellings.

 

 

9.3.1    Overshadowing and Sunlight Access

 

The application includes shadow diagrams for 9.00am, 12.00 noon and 3.00pm on 21 June.  The diagrams do not describe the existing extent of overshadowing of the adjoining properties, however it is apparent that the proposal will reduce the level of daylight access to the internal living areas to the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 6 Ascot Street to substantially less than 3 hours per day in mid-winter. 

 

The submitted shadow diagrams do not appear to be measured from the correct points of reference on the proposed building.  The drawings fail to take into account the overshadowing impacts of the proposed balconies and, as such, understate the extent of likely overshadowing.  On this basis, it is apparent that daylight access to the internal living areas of dwellings at the rear of No. 14 Ascot Street will be reduced to less than 3 hours per day in mid-winter.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate a substantial increase in levels of afternoon mid-winter overshadowing for the principal open space areas of adjoining properties at No. 4 and 6 Ascot Street and properties to the south and south-east of the site.  The proposal entails a substantial increase in morning mid-winter overshadowing for the rear communal open space of No. 14 Ascot Street and properties to south and south-west fronting Bowral Street. 

 

While some increase in overshadowing may reasonably be expected from redevelopment of the subject site, it is considered that the extent of additional overshadowing provided by the proposed development is not justifiable and results from an excessive building bulk and a poor quality building configuration that fails to adequately respond to the site dimensions.

 

9.3.2    Privacy and Overlooking

 

In general, the proposal provides for reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy for the internal living areas and private open space areas of the proposed dwellings and those on the adjoining properties.  The internal layout of the proposed building groups and separates noisy and quiet spaces sufficiently to provide for adequate levels of acoustic privacy between dwellings.

 

Ground Floor

 

Windows attached to internal living areas in the ground floor units at the front (northern end) of the proposed building are oriented towards Ascot Street and do not directly overlook any living areas or private open space areas on the adjoining properties.  Side windows for the front ground floor units are limited in size and are attached only to secondary uses within the dwellings.  These windows are separated from the side boundaries by a minimum of 4.0m and entail no unreasonable privacy impacts for adjoining properties. 

 

Side windows for the middle ground floor units are attached to living areas, however these are set back from the side boundaries by between 7.1m and 7.8m and are sufficiently separated from the side boundaries to avoid any unreasonable privacy impacts for the adjoining properties.

 

Ground floor units at the rear (southern end) of the proposed building include windows attached to living areas oriented to the side and rear boundaries.  The proposed side windows are oriented towards existing open space areas at the rear of No. 6 Ascot Street and a communal driveway and parking area at the rear of No. 14 Ascot Street and do not entail any unreasonable privacy impacts for these properties.  Rear-facing windows are sufficiently separated and screened to avoid any unreasonable impacts for adjoining premises to the south.

 

First and Second Floors

 

Windows attached to internal living areas in the first floor units at the front (northern end) of the proposed building are oriented towards Ascot Street and maintain the visual privacy of the adjoining buildings.  The proposed balconies provide opportunities for overlooking of the adjoining properties, however these are adequately set back from the side boundary to avoid any unreasonable levels of overlooking.   Side windows for the first and second floor units repeat the pattern of the ground floor units and are limited in size and are attached only to secondary uses within the dwellings.

 

Side windows and balconies for the middle first and second floor units are attached to living areas, however these are sufficiently separated from the side boundaries to avoid any unreasonable overlooking of the adjoining properties.

 

First and second floor units at the rear (southern end) of the proposed building include windows attached to living areas and balconies oriented to the side and rear boundaries.  These are sufficiently set back from the boundaries to avoid any unreasonable impacts for adjoining premises to the south.

 

9.3.3    Views

 

The proposal does not interrupt any significant views from adjoining properties.  However, the subject site occupies a substantial proportion of the backdrop to views towards Ascot Street from Kokoda Memorial Park and across the park from Goodwood Street.  The proposal’s excessive building bulk and failure to achieve an acceptable fit within the street context will cause it to be a significant and undesirable element of these views.

 

            9.4       Building Design, Materials and Appearance

 

The existing built form character of Ascot Street is dominated by a substantially intact row of single-storey Federation terrace houses and bungalows on the southern side of Ascot Street.  The pattern is interrupted by the three-storey pre-WWII flat building adjoining the site at No. 14 Ascot Street.  A 1960s-1980s walk-up flat building is located west of the site on the northern side of Ascot Street.  The street is framed at either end by Doncaster Avenue, which contains a variety of housing types including a number of heritage listed Federation terraces, and Anzac Parade, which contains a row of two-storey Victorian terrace-style shops extending south from the Ascot Street corner.  These are identified by the Kensington Town Centre DCP as being contributory to the Town Centre’s character. 

 

The resulting building is singular in character and highly distinctive within the street context for its excessive bulk, simplistic design and unrepresentative façade composition.  The proposal exhibits poor design quality in the following areas:

·    The proposal fails to maintain the established rhythm and pattern of individual dwelling entries from the street;

·    The proposed front building setback fails to maintain continuity of the established built form within the street;

·    The location, size and pattern of windows within the front façade is singular in character and does not indicate any attempt at continuity with established buildings within the street;

·    The style, pattern and proportions of proposed façade elements, including columns, balustrades and balcony widths fails to maintain continuity with the established built form character of the street.

 

While the proposal represents a new building type for the site, it nevertheless fails to adequately identify and respond to the desirable elements of the existing street character and pattern of development within Ascot Street and the surrounding locality.  The proposed building is unacceptable in this regard.

 

9.5       Building Bulk and Scale

 

The proposed building bulk and scale are excessive and disproportionate to the site size and dimensions.  The proposed building design is simplistic and implies a design approach based largely on achieving a maximum dwelling density at the expense of design quality considerations.  The resulting building form displays a bulk and scale that is distributed across the site in a crude manner and that results in an excessive visual bulk when viewed down the site and within the street context. 

 

The proposed building form implies a poor level of site analysis to determine the most appropriate means to achieve the Multi-Unit Housing DCP’s aims for amenity, sustainability and visual appropriateness.  The subject site exhibits no substantial above-ground design constraints and displays an area, dimensions, topography and orientation that are favourable to sensitive site planning and quality design.  The proposed building form fails to respond to opportunities to achieve a configuration that more effectively provides for dwelling amenity and the creation of quality landscaped areas within the site.  The proposed scale of the building is excessive and entails an unnecessary degree of overshadowing and aesthetic impacts for adjoining properties.  The proposed bulk and scale are unacceptable in the circumstances.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the subject site and fails to adequately respond to opportunities for quality design afforded by the site’s favourable area, dimensions, topography and orientation.  The proposal is inconsistent with the desirable elements of the established streetscape context and entails unacceptable overshadowing and enmity impacts for the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Randwick LEP 1998 regarding landscaped area and floor space and is inconsistent with a number of the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.  The proposal fails to achieve design quality in accordance with SEPP 65.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 995/2002 for demolition of the three existing dwellings and the construction of a three storey multi-unit housing development containing 24 x one bedroom dwellings with associated basement car parking at 8-12 Ascot Street, Kensington for the following reasons:-

 

(a)  The proposed development fails to demonstrate design quality in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

(b)  The proposed development fails to provide a sufficient amount of landscaped area not located above podiums or excavated basement areas in accordance with Clause 31(3) of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

(c)  The proposed development entails a gross floor area that is in excess of the requirements of Clause 32 of the Randwick LEP 1998 and that is not justified under the terms of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards.

 

(d)  The proposed development fails to demonstrate an acceptable level of site analysis in accordance with the Council’s requirements.

 

(e)  The proposed development has not adequately addressed groundwater and flooding issues, or demonstrated that the proposal does not constitute integrated development.

 

(f)   The proposed development exhibits a building bulk and scale that is excessive and out of character with the surrounding built form context.

 

(g)  The proposed development entails unacceptable levels of overshadowing for neighbouring properties.

 

(h)  The proposed development does not comply with the objectives or requirements of the Council’s building setback provisions.

 

(i)   The proposed development entails unacceptable visual amenity impacts for the streetscape and neighbouring properties.

 

(j)   The proposal exhibits an unacceptably poor aesthetic quality that is undesirable and inconsistent with the streetscape.

 

(k)  The proposal fails to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes suitable to the site and its context.

 

(l)   The proposal fails to meet the Council’s minimum requirements for the provision of barrier-free access.

 

(m) The proposed development does not provide adequate storage space in accordance with the Council’s requirements.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. 12 Ascot Street

 

No. 8 & 10 Ascot Street

 

View of the subject site looking south across Kokoda Memorial Park from Goodwood Street.

 

View of subject site looking east along Ascot Street towards Doncaster Avenue.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 19/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

45 Ritchard Avenue, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D/273/2002 GE 'A'

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 273/2002  GE ‘A’ for modification to extend first floor balcony to Unit 4 and include new french doors to the side of existing bay window 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 10 March 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:

10 March, 2003

FILE NO:

D0273/2002/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to extend first floor balcony to unit 4 and include new french doors to the side of existing bay window

PROPERTY:

 45 Ritchard Ave Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Bassett & Jones Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council on the 23 July 2002.

 

The primary issues as raised by the objectors to the proposed modification relate to loss of privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for Section 96 Modification to the existing consent to extend the first floor balcony to unit 4 by 2m and include new french doors to the existing bay window. The additional length is to increase the area of the balcony from that reduced by conditions of consent.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Ritchard Ave. The site currently comprises of a part two part three storey multi-unit housing building. The subject building is an inter-war period design and is relatively intact. There are three existing carports/garages to the rear of the site that are allocated to each unit. Unit four is located to the first floor facing south at the rear of the subject building.

 

The surrounding streetscape contains a mixture of multi-unit housing developments and residential dwellings.

 

The subject site and location of balcony from the rear.

 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original development application was determined at the Health, Building and Planning committee meeting of the 23 July 2002 subject to 22 conditions of consent including Condition No. 6 which reduce the depth of the first floor balcony to 1300mm.

 

The applicant has lodged the current Section 96 modification to increase the length of balcony to include the bay window, this provides for additional balcony area without increasing the depth of the balcony.

 

An inspection of the subject unit was undertaken on the 5 March 2003 at this time it was appreciated that there is currently a poor level of privacy between the subject site and neighbouring properties to the south. It was however noted that the level of overlooking will not be increased by any extension of the balcony area.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

George Cotsios

43 Ritchard Ave

 

·    Loss of privacy from the constructed deck to the western boundary

 

Comment

 

The proposed extension to the first floor balcony to unit four will not impact on the privacy of No. 43 as the extension is to the eastern not to the western side boundary. No. 43 is to the west of the subject site.

 

A & S Borowsky

1/22 Mount St

 

·    Loss of privacy and increased noise from the extended deck area

 

Comment

 

After an inspection was undertaken from the living areas of the subject site it is noted that the extended balcony will not further impact on privacy due to the anticipated sightlines being above an angle possible to look directly into the rooms of the adjoining properties. It is considered that overlooking is critical from within the unit to the adjoining properties but there will be no further impact from the balcony area. To improve perceived privacy between the properties a privacy screen shall be provided to a height of 900mm to restrict sightlines when seated on the balcony.

 

No additional noise is anticipated from given the modest increase in area of the balcony.

 

B & S Nottage

2/22 Mount St

 

·    Loss of privacy and increased impact

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed there is no additional impact anticipated from the extension of the balcony area to the first floor. To provide additional visual separation between the balcony and adjoining properties a balustrade of louvered design will be provided.

 

H Kaiser

3/22 Mount St

 

·    Further privacy and noise impact from neighbouring property

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed, whilst the existing level of privacy between both properties is agreed to be poor, the extension to the east of the existing deck will not have any additional impact.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred within Council for comment from technical officers as the original comments received are still applicable.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 the multi unit housing development is an existing non-conforming use in the 2A zone with existing use rights, consent may be issued for alterations and additions to the building.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

 

The subject site is zoned residential 2A as such the multi unit housing development control plan is not applicable, as the application is not a dwelling house the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is not applicable either. In the original assessment the Multi unit housing DCP was used as a guide.

 

From the original approval there are no further variations from the development standards or the assessment criteria contained within either the LEP or DCP.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1   Substantially the same

 

The proposed amendments are not considered to significantly alter the development proposal such that the works will result in a development substantially the same as that approved. The modifications are minor in nature and will not alter the function or original intention of the balcony structure.

 

8.2   Consideration of submissions

 

The submissions received as part of the notification process have been considered have been discussed in detail previously within this report.

 

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   Privacy impacts

 

As part of the original application privacy impacts were noted as the primary concern through the assessment process and from neighbour objections. As part of the original assessment it was determined that reducing the areas of the decks and provision of screening would mitigate these concerns.

 

The modification to extend the first floor balcony area to unit four by an additional 2m is not considered to be contrary to the intention of the original determination. The intention was to reduce to usable area in particular reference to the depth of the balcony, extending the length will not significantly increase usability and will not increase the visual prominence of the balcony. The increase in area is considered to be minimal and will not improve sightlines between the subject site and neighbouring affected properties. The most impacting sightlines are experienced from within the existing living areas of the units.

 

To reduce the perceived impact of an extended balcony to the properties to the south a louvered balustrade will be required which will obscure any sightlines when seated on the balcony whilst preserving views to the east.

 

The increase in balcony area is unlikely to have any additional privacy impact from that experienced from the existing living areas of the unit and the already approved balcony area.

 

The view of unit four and location of the balcony from the affected property 2/22 Mount St from the kitchen area.

 

 

9.2   Urban design/built form

 

The proposed first floor balcony to unit four is considered to be consistent with the design of the ground floor and in keeping with the existing proportions of the building. The extended balcony area is not considered to impact on the character or quality of the built form of the building.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed section 96 modification to consent is considered to be consistent with the approved development application. The proposed modifications will not have any additional adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and is consistent 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.273/02 on property 45 Ritchard Ave Coogee in the following manner:

 

1.     Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

“1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0108 DA00-05B, dated 5/2/02 and received by Council on 28/3/02, unless modified by the plans received as part of section 96 application ‘A’ plans numbered 0108 DA00D-DA05D, dated Dec 2002 and received by Council on the 3 Jan 2003, the application forms and on any supporting information received with the applications, except as may be amended by any conditions and as may be shown in red on the plans.”

 

2.   Add Condition No. 23

 

The proposed first floor balcony of unit 4 shall have a balustrade constructed of a louvered design which will restrict direct sightlines into the property to the rear (No.22 Mount St) whilst preserving views for the subject unit to the south-east.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 20/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MASTER PLAN FOR 1-81 LITTLE BAY ROAD, LITTLE BAY

 

 

DATE:

19 March, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2772

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

1.         INTRODUCTION:

 

On 15 November 2002, CPG Developments submitted a Master Plan for the Landcom-owned site at 1-81 Little Bay Road, Little Bay. 

 

The Master Plan sets out a strategy for the development of the subject land for residential development comprising single dwelling houses and terraces. The Master Plan also proposes the retention of an existing creek as open space, construction of an internal road system, and the integration of these open space and access elements with the new residential use.

 

The Master Plan has been prepared in consultation with Council in accordance with clause 40(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Randwick LEP 1998). In accordance with clause 40(6) of Randwick LEP 1998 Council advertised and exhibited the Master Plan and called for public submissions. The notification and exhibition process has occurred and the results are detailed in relevant sections of this report.

 

This report recommends that Council adopt the Master Plan for 1-81 Little Bay Road subject to variations to the Master Plan and acceptance of a number of matters to be addressed in future development applications for the proposal.

 

2.         THE MASTER PLAN:

 

The Master Plan proposes the following uses:

 

§ 14 Terrace dwellings

§ 52 Dwelling houses comprising 18 small detached houses (on 325 – 399m2 allotments), 29 medium detached houses (on 400-500m2  allotments), and large detached houses (500-692m2  allotments).

 

The proposal will provide 10,220m2  of open space, which will comprise the creek corridor. It is proposed that the existing creek be rehabilitated, cleared of weeds, and realigned.

 

Access will be provided via an internal road system that will be linked to Little Bay Road through proposed roundabouts.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Little Bay Road and the eastern side of Bunnerong Road (that is at the south-eastern corner of these two roads). The site has an area of 4.393 ha with a frontage to Little Bay Road of approximately 350m and a boundary adjacent to Bunnerong Road of 250m. The subject site lies lower than surrounding developments as the land slopes gently down from Little Bay Road towards a small creek in the centre of the site running east-west. Beyond the creek, the land is relatively flat until its border with Woomera Reserve, which is elevated by approximately 8m.

 

The land is currently vacant with the exception of a small shed. There is an existing drainage easement that runs south off Little Bay Road and a sewerage easement that runs through the site from the houses fronting Binda Crescent.

 

The surrounding area comprises predominantly residential development, and open space/recreational uses. To the east and north-east is existing low-density detached housing, to the south is Woomera Reserve containing existing playing fields, to the west, between the subject site and Bunnerong Road, is a road-widening reserve approximately 45m wide that is owned by Council while the opposite side of Bunnerong Road comprises the Botany Cemetery and the State Heritage listed Chinese Market Gardens, and to the north on the opposite side of Little Bay Road is the Women’s Athletics Field.

 

4.         MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS:

 

Under the provisions of Amendment No 17 to Randwick LEP 1998, a Council adopted Master Plan is required prior to a consent authority determining a development application for areas greater than 4,000 square metres within the City of Randwick except for sites which have been granted a waiver under Clause 40A(2) of the Randwick LEP which allows Council to waive the requirement for a Master Plan if it is satisfied that the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.  These waiver provisions do not apply to the subject site. If adopted, the Master Plan applies for 5 years.

 

5.         STATUTORY AND POLICY CONTROLS:

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2B under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. This zone permits, amongst other things, development for dwelling houses, dual occupancies, and multi-unit housing. A floor space ratio of 0.65:1 and height control of 9.5m applies for all residential buildings (other than dwelling houses). A minimum landscape area requirement of 50 per cent of site area and a limit of 50 per cent for landscape over podium areas also applies in Residential 2B zones.

 

In addition to the Randwick LEP 1998, the following statutory planning instruments are also applicable to the site:

 

§ SEPP No. 32 – Urban Consolidation

§ SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

§ SEPP No. 66 – Transport  – Integrating Land Use and Transport

 

Apart from the provisions of the above-mentioned statutory instruments, the following development control plans of Council apply to the proposal:

 

§ DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

§ DCP – Multi-unit Housing

§ DCP – Parking

 

6.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION:

 

The Master Plan was initially exhibited from 26 November to 10 December 2002, and re-exhibited from 28 January to 12 February 2003, through advertisements in the local newspaper and notification of surrounding residents. 

 

Two submissions were received in response to the first public exhibition as follows:

 

P. Gorsuch, 42 Woomera Road, Little Bay

 

§ Development will increase population density with no provision of open space.

 

§ Site should be retained as open space.

 

§ Site is subject to flooding.

 

§ Not clear if the proposal will provide private or community housing.

 

§ Individual lots will have limited space for yards.

 

D. Meyers, 83 Little Bay Road, Little Bay

 

§ All services/utilities should be kept underground to eliminate potential eyesore and encourage tree growth.

 

§ Developer should contribute to beautification of Little Bay Road including street tree planting.

 

One submission was received in response to the readvertising/renotification of the Master Plan as follows:

 

E Cotterell, 2A Woonah Street, Little Bay

 

§ Traffic movement and impact on the Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road intersection has been underestimated.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed in sections 7 and 8 of this report.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

 

6.1       Health, Building and Environment Comments

 

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services Section advises that assessment of the contamination details provided with the Master Plan indicates that contamination exists on-site primarily in the form of:

 

1.         Broken pieces of asbestos cement sheeting were observed on the surface soil adjacent to the concrete slab on the site. Chrysotile and amosite asbestos fibres were detected within pieces of broken sheeting.

 

2.         Concentrations of arsenic, chromium and mercury exceeding NSW EPA provisional phototoxicity-based guidelines.

 

No objections are raised to the Master Plan subject to appropriate amendments being made to the Master Plan in line with the requirements of SEPP 55 to ensure that the land is remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. In the case of asbestos, where no standard exists, Council will require 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. Council will require the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and ground water to certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan.

 

Apart from contamination issues, other matters relating to noise, environmental amenity, health and safety will be required to be addressed at the DA stage. 

 

6.2       Assets and Infrastructure Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

     Community Title Comments

 

The Master Plan submission has been lodged as a development proposal under Community Title subdivision. The Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services is not opposed to the concept of community title subdivision as such, however the design standards adopted by the applicant for this Master Plan vary significantly from those design standards adopted by Council and applied to civil infrastructure that is under the care, control or ownership of Council.

 

Watercourse and Community Title

 

The DEPCD is advised that the DAIS would not favour the proposed open watercourse for reasons of excessive maintenance and safety concerns/potential public liability issues. The DAIS’ preferred option for the discharge of stormwater that currently drains via the creek would be for a major/minor system consisting of a low flow pipeline, (with a minimum capacity to discharge a 1 in 5 year storm), and provision of an overland flow for up to the 1 in 100 year storm event. The applicant has argued that the Master Plan submission is in compliance with latest WSUD practice and they have stated that Council’s proposal would not be supported by the DLWC, (see copy of DLWC letter attached). In summary the DAIS would not support the proposed open watercourse / riparian zone if the area was to be dedicated to Council / come under Council’s care and control. The proposal for an open watercourse can only be supported if sufficient surety is given by the applicant that Council will never have ownership or maintenance responsibility for the subject watercourse. The DAIS has concerns regarding the maintenance of the watercourse and associated planting/landscaping costs and any development consent for this site is likely to contain conditions bonding the applicant for maintenance costs associated with the upkeep of the watercourse/landscape areas for a minimum of 10 years.

 

Road Reserve and Community Title

 

The DEPCD is advised that if the road network was to be dedicated to Council the proposed carriageway widths for the majority of the road network are considered unsatisfactory.

 

The DAIS recommended road carriageway widths, (minimum), for Council controlled roads are as follows:

 

·    Roads with residential dwellings on both sides be designed with a carriageway at least 10.6 metres wide, face of kerb to face of kerb. This allows for two parking lanes, (2.3 metres wide measured from face of kerb), and two travel lanes 3.0 metres wide.

 

·    Roads with residential dwellings on one side only should be designed with a carriageway at least 8.75 metres wide, face of kerb to face of kerb). This allows for one parking lane, (2.3 metres wide measured from face of kerb) and two travel lanes clear of the gutter on the non-parking lane side, (gutter is 0.45 metres wide).

 

The proposed road carriageway widths and verge widths in the Master Plan submission are as follows:

 

·    Type A – 7m road carriageway width, 4m verges.

 

·    Type B – 5.5m road carriageway, 3.5m verge and 4.5m verge, (some with bio swales).

 

·    Type C – 5.5m road carriageway, 3.0m verge against townhouses and 1.0m verge on the other side.

 

·    Type D – 3.7m road carriageway, 3.0m verge one side and 1.0m verge on the other side.

 

Even allowing for the fact that the roads are not being dedicated to Council the DAIS believes that either changes need to be made to the proposed road carriageway widths or a more detailed submission in support of the widths as proposed is required.

 

The Type A carriageway, in theory, makes provision for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass and the applicant has indicated that this road type is at the top of the road hierarchy. Subsequent to submission of the Master Plan the applicant submitted a document titled “Visitor Parking Plan” (dated February 2003), and this plan shows that parking is proposed on the eastern side of Access Road Type A. The DEPCD is advised that if vehicles are parked along the eastern side of the type A road the available clearance for other vehicles using the road will be approximately 4.7 metres measured from the face of the western kerb. The DAIS is of the opinion that this road type was to be capable of allowing vehicles to pass when travelling in opposite directions, based on the February parking plan this scenario will not be possible if vehicles are parked along the eastern kerb line. The DAIS recommends that the Type A carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 8.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m southbound lane, 3metre northbound lane that is 0.45metres clear of the western kerb alignment). If the total road reserve is to be maintained as the proposed 15 metres, the verge widths will be reduced to approximately 3.12 metres.

 

The Type B carriageway, in theory, makes provision for a parking lane along one kerb alignment and approximately 3.2 metres of carriageway available for through movements.  The DAIS recommends that the Type B carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths.

 

The Type C carriageway, in theory, makes provision for a parking lane along one kerb alignment and approximately 3.2 metres of carriageway available for through movements.  The DAIS recommends that the Type C carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths however the proposed 1.0metre wide verge cannot have its width reduced.

 

The Type D carriageway appears satisfactory.

 

Subject to care and control of the road reserves being solely the responsibility of the Community Title stakeholders, and subject to the carriageway widths being modified as recommended above, the DAIS does not object to the road reserve widths as proposed in the Master Plan.

 

Traffic/Civil Works Comments

 

The subject Master Plan submission has been referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for comment and to date no response has been received. The applicant needs to be made aware that the RTA comments must be considered prior to the submission of any development application and that any development application for this site should reflect the recommendations of the RTA.

 

The applicant will be conditioned to meet the full cost for significant civil works to be undertaken in Bunnerong Road, at the intersection of Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road and Little Bay Road. The civil works may extend past the Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road site frontages should this be required to produce a better design solution. The civil works shall include, but not be limited to, kerb and gutter construction, drainage works, road construction/reconstruction works, construction of footpaths, (3metres wide for shared pedestrian cycleways), and construction of traffic control measures. All civil works within Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road shall be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works".

 

The sections of the internal roads that connect the development site with Little Bay Road shall be suitably designed such that the internal roads are clearly identifiable as roads under the proposed Community Title. Design details should be submitted for approval with any development application for the site.

 

All road pavements must be designed for a minimum forty-year design life.

 

All civil works within the development site shall be carried in accordance with Council’s construction specifications.

 

The road carriageway widths must be amended as discussed/recommended above, Type A carriageway being a minimum of 8.75 metres, Type B carriageway being a minimum of 5.75metres and Type C carriageway being a minimum of 5.75metres.

 

Comments on Water Management and Servicing Strategy

 

   Flood Study

 

The applicant has submitted a flood study in conjunction with the master plan which determines the 1 in 100 year flood levels through the site. The flow volumes have been calculated using RAFTS, and the corresponding flows depths have been determined using HECRAS. Council does not have RAFTS and thus the applicant should be advised that they will be required to meet the costs for Council to engage an independent consultant to review the floodstudy. The floodstudy will need to be approved prior to the flood levels being adopted and the final floor levels set. It is noted that the floor level of all habitable and storage areas shall be a minimum of 300 mm above the determined 1 in 100 year flood level.

 

The development is required (at a minimum) to maintain flood levels at the existing levels. It is noted that Council would prefer these levels to be reduced wherever possible provided that flows downstream and upstream of the site are not increased by the works.

 

   Open Channel / Creek

 

The applicant shall note that Council may request that an easement be created over the creek (up to the 1 in 100 year flow boundaries). Alternatively, consideration may be given to creating a drainage reserve over the creek, with the DLWC as the nominated responsible authority.

 

Council is likely to impose a positive covenant (and possibly a restriction as to user) over the creek area to ensure that the area is suitable maintained.

 

The applicant shall liase with the DLWC regarding safety issues surrounding the open channel and comply with all safety requirements issued by the Department. It is noted that the applicant will need to address how public liability issues will be addressed on the community title.

 

The proposed side slopes of the channel should be the to satisfaction of the DLWC.

 

   Provisions for conveying stormwater currently draining to the site

 

There are two low points along Little Bay Road and one on Binda Crescent. These low points should be drained though pipes sized for the 20 year ARI with provision for overland flow up to the 1 in 100 year storm event. The piped stormwater and overland flow shall be discharged to the creek and easements shall be created over the pipes and overland flow paths.

 

It is noted that Council’s baseplans show some pipelines/easements already located within the site. The size and location of these pipelines and easements should be determined.

 

The velocity depth restriction of VD£ 0.4 for a 1 in 100 year storm should be applied along the overland flow paths.

 

   Onsite detention

 

It is noted that the development site is located outside the areas designated by Council for onsite detention.

 

Surface flows from the site are directed under (and during major storm events over) Bunnerong Road and into the market gardens.

 

The provision of onsite detention would reduce flows in the Market Gardens during major storm events; and reduce the probability of nuisance flooding over Bunnerong Road, however, assuming that the submitted flood studies are correct, the depth of flooding over Bunnerong Road is only some 100mm for the 1 in 100 year storm and it is therefore considered unnecessary to condition development consent for OSD to eliminate this small amount of flooding.

 

In accordance with Council’s current practises, each of the new houses will be required to provide a minimum 5 metres square base infiltration area. This will reduce stormwater runoff from the development site during smaller storm events.

 

The provision of rainwater tanks for each of the houses may also reduce stormwater runoff.

 

   Internal drainage system

 

The minor stormwater system should be designed for the 20 year ARI as proposed, and the major system shall cater for flows up to the 100 year ARI.

 

   Water quality issues

 

The applicant shall provide, (with any development application for the site), a maintenance schedule for the GPT’s, bioretention swales and creek in conjunction with any development application.

 

   General Stormwater Comments

 

Based on the drainage information submitted with the Master Plan the development site can be drained to Council’s satisfaction/standards without impacting on the proposed subdivision layout. Detailed conditions relating to site stormwater drainage shall be included as part of any development consent for the development proposal.

 

The applicant shall note that, as part of ongoing stormwater studies relating to stormwater inundation of areas downstream from the Master Plan site, Council may require the construction of an onsite stormwater detention area in that section of Bunnerong Road immediately west of the development site.

 

Landscape Comments

 

Detailed landscape design plans for the site will need to be submitted and approved as part of the assessment of any future development application and/or construction certificate application for the site, (including full landscape design details for the creek corridor/riparian zone).

 

Street trees need to be incorporated in the landscape plans and species need to be in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s Street Tree Master plan. Street trees are to be shown along Bunnerong Road, Little Bay Road and internal roads.

 

The development site has one example of bushland remnant. It is recommended that an on-site meeting between the proponent and council’s bushland staff be arranged to identify the remnant vegetation prior to the lodgement of any development application for the site. No disturbance or development in the vicinity of the bushland remnant is to be permitted however Council’s bushland staff have indicated that retention/protection of the bushland remnant will not have a significant impact on development within the site.

 

The applicant should submit a detailed weed control strategy with any development application for the site.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

Prior to lodgement of any development application for the site 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.

 

All public utility services located within the development site shall be suitably located underground and in compliance with the requirements/conditions imposed by the various service authorities.

           

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

 

Suitable easements for the utility services and documentation from the associated utility service provider that all services have been installed to their requirements and satisfaction shall be submitted to The Certifying Authority prior to the release of the linen plans.

 

There shall be no kiosks located within the Council road reserves. Any kiosk shall be located to the satisfaction and approval of Council and Energy Australia.

 

All street lighting and lighting within reserves shall be installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Roads and Traffic Authority standards for lighting of residential streets, collector roads, intersections, pedestrian and cycle ways and public reserves.

 

Prior to any construction works, the applicant shall submit and have approved by The Certifying Authority a compilation plan of all the public utilities.

 

Note that all public utilities that are parallel to any existing or proposed Council stormwater drainage pipelines shall be located a minimum of 1.5 metres from the centreline of the stormwater pipeline.

 

All site services shall be provided underground.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

The applicant has submitted swept path details for a 9.5metre garbage truck, (10.5 metre turning radius). The applicant shall note that any development application for this site must include a detailed waste management plan setting out the proposed method for collection of domestic waste for the development site. The applicant shall note that satisfactory collection of domestic waste may require minor alterations/modifications to the proposed road network and or travel lane/footpath/parking lane configuration of the road network.”

 

7.         EXTERNAL COMMENTS:

 

The Master Plan application was referred to State and Federal agencies. Comments made by the agencies, which mostly relates to the Development Application stage will be provided to the applicant for inclusion in relevant future DAs.  Below is a summary of issues raised by various agencies:

 

7.1       NSW Fisheries

 

NSW Fisheries has advised that the proposed realignment of the creekline is considered dredging and, as such, will require a permit from NSW Fisheries. In addition, whilst no objection has been raised to the Master Plan, the Department has listed a number of provisions for protecting fish habitat and fish passage in the proposed modification of the creekline. These provisions will be identified as matters to be addressed in future development applications for the proposed development.

 

7.2       Department of Land and Water Conservation

 

In a letter dated 5 March 2003, DLWC raised initial concerns that the proposal for the creekline works differed substantially from earlier drafts presented to the Department. A subsequent letter dated 10 March 2003 clarified DLWC’s position further, summarised as follows:

 

§ The watercourse realignment in the Master Plan is more pronounced than earlier versions but the main change is in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. DLWC requires that structural stabilisation works be localised where warranted according to flow.

 

§ The average width of the riparian zone at 32 metres is acceptable as a minimum provided that the streetscape vegetation is similar to the riparian vegetation being of native species local to the area.

 

§ The revegetation works in the riparian zone is to be rehabilitated with fully structured native vegetation local to the area. A Vegetation Management Plan together with a security deposit will be required prior to the issue of a Part 3A Permit. Creek banks must not have slopes greater than 1V to 3H.

 

§ The flooding issues are a matter for council and the full range of floods upto and including the PMF should be considered in accordance with the Government’s Floodplain Management Manual.

 

§ DLWC does not support replacing the open watercourse with piping and would not issue a Part 3A Permit for such work.

 

§ Proposed creek crossing should be a clear span bridge allowing continuity of the riparian zone to allow light and water to the riparian vegetation beneath the bridge. Details should be provided at the DA Stage.

 

The issues listed above will be required to be addressed in any future development application for the proposed development where relevant. 

 

7.3       Roads and Traffic Authority

 

No response has been received from the RTA despite a number of reminders from Council to the Authority. Notwithstanding, the absence of RTA’s comments, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services raise no objections to the Master Plan subject to further detailed assessment at the development application stage. Any future development application for the subject site will be referred to the Randwick Development Committee and the RTA.

 

7.4       Environment Australia

 

The Master Plan was referred to Environment Australia under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in relation to the potential for significant impact on specific matters of National Environmental Significance (see Section 8.11 below). Environment Australia advises that the proposed development is not a “controlled action” pursuant to section 75 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and therefore no action is required pursuant to the Act.

 

8.         DISCUSSION AND ISSUES:

 

Clause 5 of Amendment No. 17 to the Randwick LEP 1998 lists a range of matters that master plans are required to address. These matters are discussed in the following sub-sections noting especially those matters that will require master plan variations and issues raised in submissions.

 

8.1       Design

 

Dwelling houses will front Little Bay Road and the internal streets of the proposed development while the proposed terraces will be located in the centre of the proposed development with frontage to an internal street and the creek corridor.

 

The applicant has provided additional details comprising indicative building envelopes for dwelling houses and terraces showing the maximum building heights, front, rear and side setbacks, solar access provisions and landscape areas. Building envelope plans were prepared for three primary layouts:

 

§ Detached dwelling houses for lots orientated north-south

§ Detached dwellings for lots orientated east-west

§ Terrace dwellings in the centre of the site

 

The plans indicate that the proposed development will have building envelopes that will be lower in height and massing than the maximum permissible building envelope as prescribed in the relevant DCPs. Dwelling houses typically will have 6m external wall heights with pitched roof features that are generally lower than 9.5m. Terraces will typically have 7m external wall heights and 8m – 9m overall building heights. Dwelling houses and terraces will generally conform to the setback requirements in the relevant DCPs.

 

In terms of density, the applicant advises that the FSR provision of 0.65 is applied across the site, so that, based on the site area of 43, 930m2, this equates to approximately 28,555m2 of floor space. In comparison, the indicative floor space across the site is as follows:

 

14 terraces (approx. 250m2 per dwelling)                                  3,500m2

52 detached houses (approx. 440m2 per dwelling)                     22,880m2

Total                                                                                        26,380m2

 

The proposal would comply with the FSR provisions across the site.

 

No reference has been made to design principles that have guided the layout and orientation of the proposed development apart from generalised statements about the location of living spaces and garden areas. It is recommended that the Master Plan be varied to include a list of design principles that are relevant to the proposed layout and orientation of the proposed development and achieve a high quality architectural response, including but not limited to the following:

 

1.         Building design is to achieve architectural consistency with blocks to be developed in a holistic and cohesive manner.

 

2.         Building facades to streets are to incorporate the following design characteristics:

§ Well proportioned and spaced windows appropriate to their orientation;

§ Architectural features at ground level that reinforce dwelling address such as entrance porches;

§ Well balanced projected and recessed sections of balconies;

§ Use of appropriate environmental controls such as verandahs, sliding screens, window hoods and the like;

§ Coordinated and compatible materials and finishes where neutral colours predominate with strong colours limited to accent elements up to a maximum of 10% of the façade area.

 

3.         All dwellings are to be designed to achieve cross-ventilation.

 

4.         Building fronts and entries are to be readily apparent from the street and convey a sense of address.  Buildings fronting the public street must have their main entrance and windows from some habitable rooms facing the street. Building detailing and articulation must enable dwellings to be identified from the street.

 

5.         Buildings are to be aligned predominantly parallel to the street boundary and predominantly to the street setback line.

 

6.         To ensure that garages, parking structures and parking areas are located and designed so they do not to dominate the street frontage.

 

7.         Carports and garages fronting public streets are to have a maximum opening width of 6 m or 1/3 of the width of the lot, whichever is less.

 

8.         Garages are to be located within the building envelope of the associated dwelling and behind the front building line.

 

9.         Carports are to be located behind the front building line of the associated dwelling.

 

10.       Carports and garages fronting public streets are to be integrated with building design.

 

11.       Building facades are to provide environmental amenity through sun shading devices, privacy screens and noise barriers combined with useable outdoor areas.

 

12.       Fences on street frontages are designed to address the amenity of the street, surveillance and safety, security of private property, and the use of front garden space.

 

13.       Solid front fences facing the street are to be no higher than 1.2m.

 

14.       Ensure a safe physical environment by promoting crime prevention through design.

 

At the development application stage, the design of the proposal will be required to adhere to the above-listed principles.

 

 

The impact of the proposed building envelopes on solar access into the site has been assessed at the winter solstice and generally found to be acceptable (see Section 8.7.1 below).

 

The surrounding residential development is predominantly low-density dwelling houses on individual allotments. This character is accentuated by the large areas of open space (the Women’s Athletics Field and Woomera Reserve) and the Botany Cemetery in the vicinity of the subject site. The proposed residential development will be consistent with the existing character of the locality and will not be visually incompatible with the surrounding area. In addition, the design will result in acceptable amenity impacts both internally within the proposed development and externally to adjoining properties (see Section 8.7 below). 

 

8.2       Built Form

 

The draft Master Plan proposes a mix of terraces and detached houses of various sizes and types. Specifically, the proposal will have 14 terrace dwellings and 52 dwelling houses comprising 18 small detached houses, 29 medium detached houses, and 5 large detached houses.

 

The residential built form will be based on the controls contained in the Randwick LEP 1998 and the DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, which are as follows:

 

 

Large House

Medium House

Small House

Terraces

Max. Building Height

9.5m

9.5m

9.5m

9.5m

External Wall Height

7m

7m

7m

7m

Front Setback

4m

4m

4m

7m

Side Setback (Ground Floor)

900mm

900m

Zero lot line on one side, 900mm on the other

Zero

Side Setback (First Floor)

1500mm

1500mm

1500mm

Zero

Rear Setback

Variable

6m

6m

N/A

Landscaped Area

40% of total lot area

40% of total lot area

40% of total lot area

50% of total terrace housing area

Soft Landscaped area

30 % of total lot area

30% of total lot area

30% of total lot area

20% of total lot area

 

The controls indicated above are acceptable subject to the following changes which will be required of the Master Plan:

 

§ External wall height for Large Houses, Medium Houses and Small Houses shall be 7.0m

 

§ Rear setback to Large Houses shall be 6m.

 

§ Rear setback for Terraces shall be minimum average setback of 6m with no part of the building closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary, and the maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10m. The minimum length of any step is 3m.

 

§ Soft landscaped area for terrace houses shall be 25%.

 

As seen from the above controls, lot size, height, setbacks and site cover will determine the bulk and scale of the proposed development. In effect, the proposed builtform essentially will be low density detached and terrace housing, two-storeys in height, and will frame the proposed streets and the open space comprising the creek corridor appropriately.

 

Indicative building elevations have been provided with the draft Master Plan reflecting these builtforms. In this regards, the applicant has advised that the proposal will be developed as an integrated development. This is acceptable and preferable as it will ensure a cohesive and holistic design for the site.

 

8.3       Sub-division pattern

 

The Master plan will provide for individual sub-division lots for terrace houses and detached housing with the following allotment sizes:

 

Dwelling Type

Lot Size

Frontage

Number

 

Terraces

<325m2

7 m

14

Small Detached Houses

325-399m2

13 m

18

Medium Detached Houses

400-500m2

15 m

29

Large Detached Houses

>500m2

15 m

5

 

The subdivision complies with the minimum allotment size for land in Residential 2B zones under Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No. 14). As such, the proposed sub-divided lots would be of sufficient size to meet residential requirements.  In addition, all lots created by the sub-division generally will have good access to the proposed road network, are capable of being supplied with utility services, and will maximise efficiency in site use.

 

It is proposed to sub-divide the proposed development in accordance with the Community Land Development Act 1989 (CLD Act 1989). The Act provides for conventional sub-division of land involving common property to be administered and maintained by a Neighbourhood Association.

 

The proposed sub-division plan is considered acceptable subject to a variation to the Master Plan to correct a typographical error which will require the allotment sizes shown in the table on page 20 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report to be substituted with the allotment sizes shown in Figure 3 – Dwelling Mix Plan.

8.4       Street Pattern

 

The proposal will have a street pattern comprising a hierarchy of access streets with the following characteristics (see Figure 5 – Road Hierarchy Plan in A4 attachments to this report):

 

Street Type

Est. max daily traffic volume

Total road reservation

Carriage-way width

Verge width

Parking

Access Street Type A

400 vehicles/ day

15m

7m

4m

Both sides

Access Street Type B

300 vehicles/ day

13.5m

5.5m

3.5m and 4.5m

One side

Access Place Type C

100 vehicles/ day

9.5m

5.5m

3m and 1m

One side

Laneway – Type D

100 vehicles/ day

7.7m

3.7m

3m and 1m

None

 

The overall street pattern is considered satisfactory in terms of promoting connectivity and responding to built forms, landscape features and view corridors. However, concern has been raised by Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services (DAIS) in that the width of the proposed streets do not comply with Council’s standards, and would be inadequate for facilitating two-way traffic flows especially when cars are parked illegally on-street. This concern has been raised with the applicant in a number of meetings and the applicant has provided the following justifications for the road widths:

 

§ Traffic movement on the proposed internal streets will serve a low density residential development that will generate light traffic. If illegal parking should occur, vehicles passing each other in opposite directions can take turns to pass parked cars.

 

§ Narrow traffic lanes will assist in controlling traffic speeds and promote pedestrian safety.

 

§ The proposed road widths are consistent with AMCORD – Guidelines for Urban Housing which recommends carriageway widths of 5m – 5.5m to promote streets as safe and pleasant environments for urban housing.

 

§ 127 visitor carparking spaces will be provided on-site (in addition to the required number of carparking spaces per dwelling under the DCP-Parking) comprising 74 on-street carparking spaces, 32 spaces within selected development lots (made possible by increasing the setback of buildings by 5m from the front boundary of these selected lots) and 21 spaces along the Little Bay Road frontage.

 

§ The proposed development will be a community title sub-division with the roads forming part of common property under the Community Land Development Act 1989. The Act requires the preparation and lodgement of a Neighbourhood Management Statement for registration at the same time as the sub-division plan. Illegal parking on streets will be deterred through various controls/prohibitions to be contained in the Neighbourhood Management Statement that will be binding on the Neighbourhood Association and each person who is an owner, tenant, occupier or mortgagee of a lot. Council, therefore, would be absolved of any compliance, maintenance or other roles in the community title development.

 

The applicant’s justifications are generally considered reasonable especially in view of the recognition given to the role of street and sub-division patterns in managing traffic by the Urban Design Advisory Service in its Handbook for the Design and Planning of New Neighbourhoods. The Handbook states specifically that street design measures, such as carriageway width and landscaping, can control traffic speeds and discourage through traffic, and that land uses should be integrated within a network of interconnected streets to create efficient sub-divisions.   However, to ensure that due recognition is given in the Master Plan to the above-mentioned justifications, and, in particular, the applicant’s recourse to the provisions of the Community Land Development Act 1989 in addressing Council’s concerns, the Master Plan will be required to be varied to incorporate the above-listed justifications. The Master Plan will also be required to be varied to include a clear statement that all roads and other common property within the development will remain Neighbourhood Property and will not be dedicated to Council. The issue of management of the roads will also be required to be addressed at the development application stage with details to be provided in the sub-division documentation.

 

Additionally, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services have recommended the following:

 

§ The Type A carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 8.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m southbound lane, 3metre northbound lane that is 0.45metres clear of the western kerb alignment). If the total road reserve is to be maintained as the proposed 15 metres, the verge widths will be reduced to approximately 3.12 metres.

 

§ The Type B carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths.

 

   The Type C carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths however the proposed 1.0metre wide verge cannot have its width reduced.

 

Accordingly, a variation will be required of the Master Plan to reflect these changes and detailed design are to be submitted with relevant future development applications for the subject site.

 

8.5       Pedestrian and Cycleways

 

The Master Plan states that a footpath network will be provided within the site with paved footpaths proposed along at least one side of each street except for the laneway (Type D), which will operate as a shared zone. The Master Plan also states that use of bicycles will be encouraged in the site through a shared cycle-way/footpath alongside the creek corridor, which will ultimately link into the regional cycle network proposed under Council’s Bicycle Plan.

 

It is recommended that the Master plan be varied to state/indicate that all footpaths will be suitable for disabled and older persons. Details of designs will be required to be provided in any future development applications for the site.

 

8.6       Public Open Space

 

The proposal will provide 10,220m2 of open space, which will comprise the creek corridor. It is proposed that the existing creek be rehabilitated, cleared of weeds, and realigned. Revegetation with suitable indigenous riparian species and creation of pool and riffle zones is expected to enhance habitat values and encourage the return of aquatic fauna. The creek corridor will feature grassed banks with a share path alongside for recreational use by residents. It is noted that the proposed open space will be largely passive in nature providing primarily a visual amenity in the development. The Master Plan indicates that recreational use is limited to the shared pedestrian/cyclist path along the creek.

 

The open space will be fully accessible to the public as the proposed development will not be a gated or walled estate. It is intended that the recreational use of the shared pedestrian and cyclist path will be for public enjoyment. The applicant will be required to amend the Master Plan to state clearly that the proposed development will not be a walled estate and that appropriate provisions for open public access into the proposed development are made.

 

Concern has been raised by the Assets and Infrastructure Services Department to the potential liability issues that may arise from the public access and recreational use of the creek corridor as open space and from flooding and, as such, would prefer the creek to be piped and back-filled to ensure public safety. In response, the applicant has indicated to Council the following:

 

§ There is written advice from the Department of Land and Water Conservation that a permit will not be issued by the Department for piping of the creek.

 

§ The retention of the creek corridor as a revegetated riparian zone and public open space provides visual and recreational amenity and is consistent with ecologically sustainable development principles.

 

§ Any liability issues will be covered by insurance undertakings that will be required as part of the community title sub-division of the subject site under the Community Land Development Act 1989. The Act requires the preparation and lodgement of a Neighbourhood Management Statement for registration at the same time as the sub-division plan. The taking-out of insurance will be contained in the Neighbourhood Management Statement that will be binding on the Neighbourhood Association and each person who is an owner, tenant, occupier or mortgagee of a lot. Council, therefore, would be absolved of any liability associated with the use of Neighbourhood property.

 

§ The applicant advises that maintenance of the open space will be undertaken through the community title arrangements proposed for the development under the Community Land Development Act 1989. Provisions for maintenance of the creek corridor will be contained in a Neighbourhood Management Statement required under the Act that will be binding on the Neighbourhood Association and each person who is an owner, tenant, occupier or mortgagee of a lot. Council, therefore, would be absolved of any maintenance responsibilities in relation to the creek.

 

The applicant’s justifications are generally considered reasonable. However, to ensure that due recognition is given in the Master Plan to these justifications, and, in particular, the applicant’s recourse to the provisions of the Community Land Development Act 1989 in addressing Council’s concerns, the Master Plan will be required to be varied to incorporate the above-listed justifications. The Master Plan will also be required to be varied to include clear statements indicating the following:

 

   All liability issues in the subject site will be covered by insurance provisions which will be included in the Neighbourhood Management Plan under the Community Title Sub-division. Details of the type, extent and provisions of the insurance cover in conjunction with a full risk management assessment shall be provided.

 

   Maintenance of the open space will be undertaken through the community title arrangements proposed for the development under the Community Land Development Act 1989. Provisions for maintenance of the creek corridor will be contained in a Neighbourhood Management Statement required under the Act Council

 

The open space will be the subject of detailed design at the development application stage and the issue of management of the open space will also be addressed at the development application stage and include principles and guidelines for public open space within the site.

 

 

8.7       Impact on adjoining properties

 

8.7.1    Sunlight

 

The internal overshadowing impacts of the indicative building envelopes have been provided and these show the following:

 

§ The rear yards of lots orientated north-south will receive adequate solar access in winter.

 

§ The rear yards of east-west orientated lots will be overshadowed in the winter morning but will receive sunlight in the afternoon. The loss of sunlight to western rear yards in the winter mornings will be balanced by the orientation of living spaces and garden areas to the east so receive morning sunlight.

 

The generous private open space between the proposed buildings will also allow for adequate ventilation and air-flow between the buildings. Energy efficiency will be required to be addressed in detail at the development in the Development Application stage. 

 

Externally, the new development is not expected to detrimentally affect the solar access of the 12 existing residential properties abutting the subject site along the southern boundary because of the low-scaled nature of the proposed development and the significant distance separating the future and existing buildings. 

 

8.7.2    Privacy

 

The physical separation of the proposed buildings, layout of the proposed sub-division and the resultant building orientation will mitigate any possibility of overlooking between properties within the proposed development. Specifically, the proposed terraces will overlook the creek corridor to the south and south-east. 

 

Externally, the proposed development is not expected to result in overlooking of existing residential properties to the north and east of the subject site given the low elevation of the subject site relative to surrounding development and the significant separation distance between the proposed buildings and existing residential properties.

 

8.8       Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The Master Plan proposes a number of measures to promote ecologically sustainable development principles:

 

1.   The rehabilitation and enhancement of the existing watercourse

 

2.   Retention of 50 % of the site as landscaped area.

 

3.   Facilities to promote walking and cycling through and around the site.

 

4.   Provision of efficient access to public transport – all dwellings are within 300 m of bus stops.

 

5.   Use of bio-retention swales to improve water quality, enhance streetscape character and strengthen connection with the creek.

 

6.   Use of gross pollutant traps to minimise litter in stormwater run-off.

 

7.   Orientation of lots to maximise solar access and the use of appropriate landscape treatment for winter and summer conditions.

 

8.   Use of plantation, recycled or regrowth timbers for construction.

 

9.   Provision of rainwater tanks in all detached dwellings for garden watering, irrigation systems, outdoor uses and toilet flushing.

 

10. Provision of gas-boosted solar hot water.

 

11. Reduction of energy consumption for heating and cooling through dwelling design which maximises solar access, facilitates cross ventilation and provides appropriate screening and planting.

 

12. Revegetation with native and endemic plant species where appropriate to reduce water demands, provide habitat for local fauna and promote bio-diversity.

 

13. The provision of appropriate facilities to enable recycling and composting.

 

14. Diversity of housing choice to encourage social sustainability.

 

15. Provision of facilities to enable work from home.

 

By way of variation to the Master Plan, two measures will be required to be reworded to ensure their effectiveness (see Part B – Schedule of variations below). The following additional measures will also be required to be included in the Master Plan under Section 4.1:

 

1.   All buildings will demonstrate energy efficient design achieving a NatHERS rating of not less than 3.5 stars.

 

2.   Roof water from all buildings will be directed to private rainwater tanks for non-potable water reuse purposes.

 

3.   Porous paving will be utilised on all private allotments.

 

4.   Water smart plumbing fixtures will be integrated into building design.

 

5.   The gross pollutant traps, located at each discharge point, will be designed to treat all run off to the 3 month ARI magnitude and will remove liquids (grease and oils), litter and sediments. Other innovative methods to reduce nutrients and pathogens in the first flush to be developed in conjunction with Council.

 

6.   The landscaping, orientation, siting and dwelling layout are to ensure solar access to living areas and private open space and maximise use of cooling breezes.

 

7.   The design of a development is to minimise overshadowing of neighbours’ dwellings, their private open space or any solar collectors.

 

8.   Windows are to be located, sized and shaded to maximise sunshine access and penetration in winter and exclude it in summer, with large windows facing a northerly direction. Western and south-western orientation of large expanses of glass is to be generally avoided or minimised and protected with effective shading devices.

 

9.   Window shading devices are to be provided and designed for the window’s orientation and exposure to hot summer sun. Shading devices can include external screens, hoods, overhanging balconies, eaves, verandahs or pergolas.

 

10. Trees and plants are to be selected and planted to provide shade in summer yet also allow winter sun entry.

 

11. The principle living room of dwellings is to have at least 3 hours sunlight reaching 2 m2 of glazing to that room between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21; and sunlight is to be available to the principal area of ground level private open space for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21.

 

12. Sunlight is to be available to the principal area of ground level private open space for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21.

 

13. Five-star gas or solar heating is provided for pools and spas.

 

14. Energy efficient lighting and control systems are to be provided in all common and outdoor areas including basement car parks in multi unit developments. 

 

15. Gas is to be plumbed into the kitchen and living rooms and any other rooms as desired.

 

16. Open fire places are not to be installed.

 

17. External drying areas are to be available and readily accessible to all dwellings and sited to receive good winter sun and breezes.

 

18. Water flow reducing fittings or flow reduction valves are to be installed to all service outlets.

 

19. Windows and building layout should facilitate summer cooling by cross ventilation.  No dwelling is to rely solely on air-conditioning for thermal comfort.

 

20. Internal rooms reliant on artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation should be minimised.

 

21. All carparking areas should be naturally ventilated.

 

22. Doors and windows and their openings are to have adequate means of draught control.

 

23. Where practical and appropriate, skylights and/or wind powered ventilators are installed to enhance natural light and ventilation.

 

24. Roof spaces are to be ventilated.

 

25. In all dwellings a maximum of 50% of lighting should be incandescent or low voltage.

 

26. Materials selection takes into account the life cycle effect of their manufacture, use and disposal.

 

27. The use of PVC is to be minimised.

 

28. Water efficient plumbing fixtures are to be integrated into the building design including, but not limited to dual flush toilets and low flow shower heads and tap roses (triple A rated).

 

29. In-sink food and waste disposal systems are not to be installed.

 

30. Eight percent (8%) of the floor space of each dwelling is to be provided for storage. Half of the storage area can be in garages, semi-basement enclosures or located externally. Internal storage areas may include linen cupboards, laundry cupboards, under stair areas and built in wardrobes, but kitchen and bathroom storage is excluded from the 8% calculation.

 

31. The design of landscaped areas is to provide for on-site composting.

 

The Master Plan will also be required to be amended such that the ESD principles of precautionary approach, intergenerational equity and conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity are applied to each of the above-listed measures to further confirm their ecological value.

 

8.9       Site Remediation

 

The site has been impacted by past vegetation clearance and market gardening activities that have disturbed the upper-most portions of the soil profiles. Studies undertaken by the applicant’s environmental consultants indicate that contamination exists on-site primarily in the form of the following:

 

1.   Broken pieces of asbestos cement sheeting were observed on the surface soil adjacent to the concrete slab on the site. Chrysotile and amosite asbestos fibres were detected within pieces of broken sheeting.

 

2.   Concentrations of arsenic, chromium and mercury exceeding NSW EPA provisional phytotoxicity-based guidelines.

 

It should be noted that the Master Plan does not address the issue of potential groundwater contamination arising from, amongst other things, leaching of contaminants from the Women’s Athletics Field on the northern side of Little Bay Road opposite the subject site.  In this regard, further groundwater monitoring should be conducted around areas of concern and assessment made for the possibility of migration of contaminants via ground water. Accordingly, a variation to the Master Plan will be required to be made to address this issue.

 

In relation to the above-listed contamination issues in the site, all works will be required to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of:

 

·    The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    EPA guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999;

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land;

·    DUAP/EPA Planning Guidelines 1997 - Managing Contaminated Land;

 

The site will be required to be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. In the case of asbestos, where no standard exists, Council will require 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. Council will require the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and ground water to certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan.

 

Accordingly, the relevant sections of the Master Plan will be required to be amended to state and provide for the following:

 

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 will be prepared and submitted with any development application for the site.  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 site must be remediated to not less than the National Environmental Health Forum’s health based soil investigation level (NEHF A) standard. Except in relation to Open space, which must be remediated to not less than (NEHF E) standard.

 

The site audit statement will 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 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.   The Site Audit Statement shall be supplemented by an independent and       appropriately qualified professional’s opinion confirming that the site, and in particular the prior use of pesticides, herbicides and the like on the site for market gardening, poses a negligible risk in terms of health related effects and the land is suitable for its intended land use. Should the opinion make recommendations to ensure negligible risk, all recommendations are to carried out and certified.”

 

Once approved by Council, the process outlined in the work plan is to be monitored by the site auditor and validated upon completion of the works by an Environmental Consultant and the Site Auditor.

 

3.   A work plan be prepared in accordance with Australian Standard AS260-2001, Demolition of Structure by a suitably qualified and experienced person, accompanied by written concurrence from the appointed site auditor is to be submitted to Council for their approval. The work plan shall include (but not be limited to);

 

4.   Appointment of 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.

 

5.   Establishment of a 24-hour complaints hotline, 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.

 

8.10     Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

A traffic study incorporating analysis of intersection, parking requirements and public transport measures within the site was submitted with the Master Plan. The traffic study calculates that the traffic generation of the proposed development will be about 53 vehicle movements per peak hour and about 560 vehicle movements per day, which is considered low compared to background volumes. The study advises that Little Bay Road has the characteristics of a collector road with an environmental traffic limit of 500 vehicles per hour. As such, traffic volumes on Little Bay Road will remain well below this level even with traffic from both the redeveloped subject site and the Prince Henry Hospital site. The Traffic study has also analysed the operation of intersections on Little Bay Road under future traffic loads. The study indicates that all intersections would operate well under the forecast traffic loads and no capacity improvements would be necessary.

 

The Master Plan was referred to the RTA for comments. No response was received from the RTA. Notwithstanding, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services have raised no objections to the Master Plan subject to appropriate details being provided at the development application stage. A number of recommendations which are relevant to the development application stage have been made.

 

The parking provisions of the Master Plan are consistent with Council’s requirements with each dwelling to be allocated 2 off-street spaces per dwelling. In addition, approximately 127 spaces will be provided on-site comprising 74 on-street carparking spaces, 32 spaces within selected development lots (made possible by increasing the setback of buildings by 5m from the front boundary of these selected lots) and 21 spaces along the Little Bay Road frontage.

 

8.11     Flora and Fauna

 

The applicant has submitted a flora and fauna report with the Master Plan, indicating that field investigations on-site recorded no flora or fauna species listed as threatened in the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and no flora or fauna species being part of any “endangered population” listed in the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. In addition, the report advises that no “endangered ecologically communities” listed in the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 are considered likely to be affected by the proposed development.

 

The study has also addressed the proposal’s obligations under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 with regards impacts on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). The study advises that one-listed migratory species, the Black Shouldered Kite, was recorded on the subject site. Whilst the study considers that the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon this species, the applicant has referred the proposed development to Environment Australia for confirmation (see Section 7.4 above). Environment Australia has responded, advising that the proposed development is not a “controlled action” pursuant to section 75 of the Commonwealth Act. Accordingly, no action is required pursuant to the Act. The report recommends that all weed material be removed from the site in accordance with the NSW Noxious weeds Act 1993, existing native trees on the site should be considered to be retained, and locally indigenous plant species be used in replanting or landscaping schemes on-site.

 

Council’s Bushland Management Officer advises that the site contains a small portion of remnant bushland. The Officer advises that an on-site meeting should be held with the applicant to identify the remnant vegetation prior to the lodgement of any development application for the site. The Bushland Officer advises that retention/protection of the bushland remnant will not have a significant impact on development within the site. This issue will be dealt with as a matter to be addressed at the development application stage. 

 

8.12     Social Impact

 

The proposal is considered to increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone. The effect of the proposal is to bring more people to the site with an expected influx of second and third home buyers and families with children. As such, the applicant advises in Section 5.6 of the Master Plan Report that the new population is likely to be younger with a higher median income. In view of this, the social impact of the proposal should be further augmented through the provision of affordable housing on-site. The developer will be required to dedicate one dwelling unit for affordable housing which will increase the availability of housing for low to moderate income house-holds. In this regard it should be noted that LANDCOM, as the owner of the land, have a clear policy of requiring a percentage of affordable housing before projects can proceed. The Master Plan will be required to be amended to provide for the dedication to Council of one terrace unit for affordable housing.

 

The added population on-site will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of existing services in the locality.

 

8.13     Resident Submissions

 

§ Development will increase population density with no provision of open space. Site should be retained as opens space.

 

The proposal is consistent with State government urban consolidation policy which facilitates the development of surplus land through the provision of housing near existing transport and community facilities to ensure the efficient use of urban land. The proposal will provide for adequate open space within the development site. There are existing open space areas in the locality comprising Woomera Reserve and the Women’s Athletics Field.

 

§ Site is subject to flooding.

 

The applicant has submitted a flood study in conjunction with the master plan which determines the 1 in 100 year flood levels through the site. The applicant has further advised that the floor level of all habitable and storage areas shall be a minimum of 300 mm above the determined 1 in 100 year flood level. Council will require the flood study to be independently assessed and approved prior to the flood levels being adopted and the final floor levels set.

 

§ Not clear if the proposal will provide private or community housing.

 

      The proposal is for private housing under a Community Title sub-division scheme. The proposal is not public housing.

 

§ All services/utilities should be kept underground to eliminate potential eyesore and encourage tree growth.

 

      Details of the location of all services/utilities underground are a matter that will be required to be shown at the development application stage.

 

§ Developer should contribute to beautification of Little Bay Road including street tree planting.

 

      The applicant will be required to meet the cost of tree planting along Little Bay Road and Bunnerong Road as per Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

§ Traffic movement and impact on the Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road intersection has been underestimated.

 

The applicant has submitted a traffic report which indicates that intersections in the vicinity of the site will operate satisfactorily under future traffic loads and that future traffic volumes on Little Bay Road would remain within its environmental capacity, inclusive of the future expected traffic generation of the Prince Henry Hospital redevelopment site.

 

 

9.         VARIATIONS:

 

An assessment of the draft Master Plan together with the consideration of issues raised during the consultation process has identified a number of issues in the plan which require variations. The variations are discussed in the body of this report and are detailed in Part A – Schedule of Variations below.  These variations need to be incorporated in the revised Master Plan and be submitted to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         THAT Council Adopt the Master Plan for 1-81 Little Bay Road received by Council on 15 November 2002 in accordance with amendments received by Council on 17 February 2003 Attachment 1-Amendments to the Master Plan and subject to the variations and requirements outlined in Part A -Schedule of Variations of this report.

 

2.         THAT the applicant be requested to provide a revised Master Plan document, incorporating the amendments in Attachment 1-Amendments to the Master Plan and variations in Part A - Schedule of Variations of this report, prior to the lodgement of any development application.

 

3.         THAT the applicant be advised that the issues specified in Part B – Matters to be addressed in Future Development Applications of this report be submitted with future development applications for the proposed development.

 

4.         THAT the Master Plan be adopted for 5 years from the date of its adoption being 25 March 2003.

 

Part A – Schedule of Variations

 

1.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to provide for a detailed list of design principles specifically addressing the proposed layout, orientation, building design envelope and amenity impacts of the proposed development including (but not limited to) the following:

 

1.1       Building design is to achieve architectural consistency with blocks to be developed in a holistic and cohesive manner.

 

1.2       Building facades to streets are to incorporate the following design characteristics:

§ Well proportioned and spaced windows appropriate to their orientation;

§ Architectural features at ground level that reinforce dwelling address such as entrance porches;

§ Well balanced projected and recessed sections of balconies;

§ Use of appropriate environmental controls such as verandahs, sliding screens, window hoods and the like;

§ Coordinated and compatible materials and finishes where neutral colours predominate with strong colours limited to accent elements up to a maximum of 10% of the façade area.

 

1.3       All dwellings are to be designed to achieve cross-ventilation

 

1.4       Building fronts and entries are to be readily apparent from the street and convey a sense of address.  Buildings fronting the public street must have their main entrance and windows from some habitable rooms facing the street. Building detailing and articulation must enable dwellings to be identified from the street.

 

1.5       Buildings are to be aligned predominantly parallel to the street boundary and predominantly to the street setback line.

 

1.6       To ensure that garages, parking structures and parking areas are located and designed so they do not to dominate the street frontage.

 

1.7       Carports and garages fronting public streets are to have a maximum opening width of 6 m or 1/3 of the width of the lot, whichever is less.

 

1.8       Garages are to be located within the building envelope of the associated dwelling and behind the front building line.

 

1.9       Carports are to be located behind the front building line of the associated dwelling.

 

1.10     Carports and garages fronting public streets are to be integrated with building design.

 

1.11     Building facades are to provide environmental amenity through sun shading devices, privacy screens and noise barriers combined with useable outdoor areas.

 

1.12     Fences on street frontages are designed to address the amenity of the street, surveillance and safety, security of private property, and the use of front garden space.

 

1.13     Solid front fences facing the street are to be no higher than 1.2m.

 

1.14     Ensure a safe physical environment by promoting crime prevention through design.

 

2.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to state clearly that the proposed development will not be a gated estate and that appropriate provisions for 24 hour unrestricted public access into the proposed development are made.

 

3.         The table in page 22 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report be amended to show the following:

 

§ External wall height for Large Houses, Medium Houses and Small Houses shall be 7.0m

 

§ Rear setback to Large Houses shall be 6m.

 

§ Rear setback for Terraces shall be a minimum average setback of 6m with no part of the building closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary, and the maximum length of any one section of wall (without any articulation) is 10m. The minimum length of any step is 3m.

 

§ Soft landscaped area for terrace houses shall be 25%.

 

4.         The allotment sizes shown in the table on page 20 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report to be substituted with the allotment sizes shown in Figure 3 – Dwelling Mix Plan of the same report.

 

5.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to incorporate the following:

 

·      Justifications and principles for the proposed road design.

 

§ A clear statement that the Neighbourhood Management Plan for the proposed community title sub-division will contain provisions for management of traffic and control of carparking within the proposed development pursuant to the Community Land Development Act 1989. 

 

§ A clear statement that all roads and other common property within the development will remain Neighbourhood Property under the provisions of the Community Land Development Act 1989 and will not be dedicated to Council.

 

6.         The relevant sections of the Master Plan be amended to provide for an increase in the width of proposed roads as follows:

 

§ The Type A carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 8.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m southbound lane, 3metre northbound lane that is 0.45metres clear of the western kerb alignment). If the total road reserve is to be maintained as the proposed 15 metres, the verge widths will be reduced to approximately 3.12 metres.

 

§ The Type B carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths.

 

·        The Type C carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths however the proposed 1.0metre wide verge cannot have its width reduced.

 

7.         The relevant sections of the Master Plan be amended to state and indicate that all footpaths will be suitable for disabled and older persons. Details of designs will be provided at the development application stage.

 

8.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to incorporate the following:

 

§ Justifications and design principles for the proposed use of the creek corridor as open space.

 

§ A clear statement that the Neighbourhood Management Plan for the proposed community title sub-division will contain provisions for insurance undertakings to cover all liabilities in the subject site pursuant to the Community Land Development Act 1989. 

 

·           Details of the type, extent and provisions of the insurance cover in conjunction with a full risk management assessment in the future proposed development.

 

§ A clear statement that maintenance of the open space will be undertaken through the community title arrangements proposed for the development under the Community Land Development Act 1989. Provisions for maintenance of the creek corridor will be contained in a Neighbourhood Management Statement required under the Act Council

 

9.         The open space will be the subject of detailed design at the development application stage and the issue of management of the open space will also be addressed at the development application stage.

 

10.       The relevant section of the Master Plan to be amended to provide for affordable housing in the proposed development which will involve the dedication to Council of one terrace dwelling unit for affordable housing.

 

11.       The Ecologically Sustainable Development measures listed in page 34 to 35 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report be amended as follows:

 

§ Dot point No. 9, Section 4.19, Page 34 to read: “Provision of rainwater tanks in all detached dwellings for garden watering, irrigation systems, outdoor uses and toilet flushing and washing machine use”.

 

§ Dot point No. 10, Section 4.19, Page 34 to read: “Provision of gas-boosted 5-star solar hot water heating”.

 

12.       The Ecologically Sustainable Development measures listed in page 34 to 35 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report be extended to include the following additional measures:

 

12.1     All buildings will demonstrate energy efficient design achieving a NatHERS rating of not less than 3.5 stars.

 

12.2     Roof water from all buildings will be directed to private rainwater tanks for non-potable water reuse purposes.

 

12.3     Porous paving will be utilised on all private allotments.

 

12.4     Water smart plumbing fixtures will be integrated into building design.

 

12.5     The gross pollutant traps, located at each discharge point, will be designed to treat all run off to the 3 month ARI magnitude and will remove liquids (grease and oils), litter and sediments. Other innovative methods to reduce nutrients and pathogens in the first flush to be developed in conjunction with Council.

 

12.6     The landscaping, orientation, siting and dwelling layout are to ensure solar access to living areas and private open space and maximise use of cooling breezes.

 

12.7     The design of a development is to minimise overshadowing of neighbours’ dwellings, their private open space or any solar collectors.

 

12.8     Windows are to be located, sized and shaded to maximise sunshine access and penetration in winter and exclude it in summer, with large windows facing a northerly direction. Western and south western orientation of large expanses of glass is to be generally avoided or minimised and protected with effective shading devices.

 

12.9     Window shading devices are to be provided and designed for the window’s orientation and exposure to hot summer sun. Shading devices can include external screens, hoods, overhanging balconies, eaves, verandahs or pergolas.

 

12.10   Trees and plants are to be selected and planted to provide shade in summer yet also allow winter sun entry.

 

12.11   The principle living room of dwellings is to have at least 3 hours sunlight reaching 2 m2 of glazing to that room between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21; and sunlight is to be available to the principal area of ground level private open space for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21.

 

12.12   Sunlight is to be available to the principal area of ground level private open space for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21.

 

12.13   Five-star gas or solar heating is provided for pools and spas.

 

12.14   Energy efficient lighting and control systems are to be provided in all common and outdoor areas including basement car parks in multi unit developments. 

 

12.15   Gas is to be plumbed into the kitchen and living rooms and any other rooms as desired.

 

12.16   Open fire places are not to be installed.

 

12.17   External drying areas are to be available and readily accessible to all dwellings and sited to receive good winter sun and breezes.

 

12.18   Water flow reducing fittings or flow reduction valves are to be installed to all service outlets.

 

12.19   Windows and building layout should facilitate summer cooling by cross ventilation.  No dwelling is to rely solely on air-conditioning for thermal comfort.

 

12.20   Internal rooms reliant on artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation should be minimised.

 

12.21   All carparking areas should be naturally ventilated.

 

12.22   Doors and windows and their openings are to have adequate means of draught control.

 

12.23   Where practical and appropriate, skylights and/or wind powered ventilators are installed to enhance natural light and ventilation.

 

12.24   Roof spaces are to be ventilated.

 

12.25   In all dwellings a maximum of 50% of lighting should be incandescent or low voltage.

 

12.26   Materials selection takes into account the life cycle effect of their manufacture, use and disposal.

 

12.27   The use of PVC is to be minimised.

 

12.28   Water efficient plumbing fixtures are to be integrated into the building design including, but not limited to dual flush toilets and low flow shower heads and tap roses (triple A rated).

12.29   In-sink food and waste disposal systems are not to be installed.

 

12.30   Eight percent (8%) of the floor space of each dwelling is to be provided for storage. Half of the storage area can be in garages, semi-basement enclosures or located externally. Internal storage areas may include linen cupboards, laundry cupboards, under stair areas and built in wardrobes, but kitchen and bathroom storage is excluded from the 8% calculation.

 

12.31   The design of landscaped areas is to provide for on-site composting.

 

13.       Section 4.10 of Volume 1 - Master Plan Report be amended to incorporate an assessment of each of the measures shown in page 34 to 35 of Volume 1 – Master Plan Report and the additional measures listed above, to demonstrate compliance with the Ecologically Sustainable Development criteria of precautionary approach, intergenerational equity and conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity.

 

14.       Section 4.11 of Volume 1 - Master Plan Report be amended to incorporate the following:

 

14.1     A Site Audit Statement (SAS) together with a Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) in the format defined by the Contaminated Land Management Regulation 1998 will be prepared and submitted with any development application for the site.  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 site must be remediated to not less than the National Environmental Health Forum’s health based soil investigation level (NEHF A) standard. Except in relation to Open space, which must be remediated to not less than (NEHF E) standard.

 

The site audit statement will 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 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.

 

14.2     The Site Audit Statement shall be supplemented by an independent and appropriately qualified professional’s opinion confirming that the site, and in particular the prior use of pesticides, herbicides and the like on the site for market gardening, poses a negligible risk in terms of  health related effects and the land is suitable for its intended land use. Should the opinion make recommendations to ensure negligible risk, all recommendations are to be carried out and certified.

 

Once approved by Council, the process outlined in the work plan is to be monitored by the site auditor and validated upon completion of the works by an Environmental Consultant and the Site Auditor.

 

14.3     A work plan be prepared in accordance with Australian Standard AS260-2001, Demolition of Structure by a suitably qualified and experienced person, accompanied by written concurrence from the appointed site auditor is to be submitted to Council for their approval. The work plan shall include (but not be limited to);

 

14.4     Appointment of 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.

 

14.5     Establishment of a 24-hour complaints hotline, 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.

 

Part B – Matters to be addressed in Future Development Applications

 

1.         Demonstrated consistency with all the requirements and variations of the approved Master Plan.

 

2.         The design of the proposal will be consistent with the list of design principles required under requirement No. 1 in Part A – Schedule of Variations of this report.

 

3.         Details of the design of the roads within the proposed development and management of traffic and parking on these roads to be submitted.

 

4.         Increase in the width of the proposed  roads as follows:

 

§ The Type A carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 8.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m southbound lane, 3metre northbound lane that is 0.45metres clear of the western kerb alignment). If the total road reserve is to be maintained as the proposed 15 metres, the verge widths will be reduced to approximately 3.12 metres.

 

§ The Type B carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths.

 

   The Type C carriageway width be widened to a minimum of 5.75metres, (2.3m parking lane, 3m travel lane clear of the parking lane and 0.45metres clear of the kerb alignment). The increased carriageway width will have only a minor impact on the verge widths however the proposed 1.0metre wide verge cannot have its width reduced.

 

5.         Details of the design of all footpaths showing that footpaths will be suitable for disabled and older persons to be submitted.

 

6.         Details of design of the proposed open space and management of the open space including, but not limited to, liability issues.

 

7.         Demonstrated consistency with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as stated in the revised Master Plan addressing the design and location of the buildings, open space and roads.

 

8.         Demonstrated compliance with Council’s DCP in relation to car parking proposed for the relevant components of the development including adequate spaces for ambulance and service vehicles.

 

9.         Details to demonstrate that the requirements of the Department of Land and Water Conservation as outlined in the Departments letter dated 10 March 2003 have been met.

 

10.       Details to demonstrate that the requirements of Fisheries NSW as detailed in the Departments letter dated 30 January 2003 have been met.

 

11.       Details of measures to promote and achieve energy efficiency in the design, construction and use of housing; promote the use of re-usable, recyclable and renewable resources in construction; promote reductions in energy costs in demolition and construction, promote the use of passive solar design; and protect solar access of each proposed dwelling.

 

12.       Stormwater is to be drained to a silt arrestor pit prior to discharging to either an infiltration area or the public stormwater drainage system.