Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

23rd May, 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,  27TH MAY, 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, 29TH APRIL, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2003 - MARCH QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/05 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2

 

6.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2003 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

4

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 17/2003  SURPLUS LAND ADJOINING 10 GIBSON PLACE, LITTLE BAY.

6

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 18/2003 - SOUTH DOWLING STREET SERVICE ROAD, KENSINGTON.

8

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 19/2003 - 32 BEACH STREET, COOGEE - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.

12

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 20/2003 - REGIONAL TENDER FOR DRY RECYCLABLE RECEIVAL, SORTING AND MARKETING.

24

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 21/2003 - COOGEE OVAL CONCEPT PLAN - UPGRADE OF FACILITIES PROJECT UPDATE.

39

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 22/2003 - VEGETATION REMOVAL AND RECTIFICATION WORKS WITHIN LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MALABAR.

43

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 12/2003 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL – DETERMINATIONS.

46

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 31/2003 - 46 KITCHENER STREET, MAROUBRA.

48

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 32/2003 - 335 MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

97

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 33/2003 - 89-91 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

133

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 34/2003 - 17 WOONAH STREET, LITTLE BAY.

159

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 35/2003 - 178 - 182 MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA. (MAROUBRA HOTEL.)

173

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 36/2003 - 240-266 ANZAC PARADE & 101-105 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

256

 

9.7                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 37/2003 - DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY - SECTION 96 APPLICATIONS.

409

 

9.8                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 38/2003 - PRINCE HENRY HOSPITAL AMENDED MASTER PLAN.

411

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1

By Councillor Matthews – Des Renford Aquatic Centre – Mr Healy Holt. 

441

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Reports from General Manager.

441

11.3

By Councillor Matthews – Grant to build a Community Hall in South Maroubra.

441

11.4

By Councillor Matthews – Crime Prevention in Lexington Place

441

11.5

By Councillor Andrews – Parking Spaces in Maroubra Junction.

441

11.6

By Councillor Daley – Traffic Control Measures, Fitzgerald AvenueNetball Courts Heffron Park.

441

11.7

By Councillor Notley-Smith – The Spot, Randwick – Streetscape Works.

442

11.8

By Councillor Matson – Opposition to application to Licensing Court by Beach Palace for a variation to trading hours

442

11.9

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

442

11.10

By Councillor Matson – Call for Submissions for Plastic Bags Levy Senate Inquiry.

442

11.11

By Councillor Whitehead – Bowen Library Tennant Rent– Dr Tan.

443

11.12

By Councillor Whitehead – Appointment of new General Manager.

443

11.13

By Councillor Whitehead – Effectiveness of Bus Shelters in Randwick City.

443

11.14

By Councillor Whitehead – Refurbishment of Fitzpatrick Park.

443

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MARCH QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/05 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S0555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

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

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

March 2003 Quarter Review - 2002-05 Management Plan (under separate cover)

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Affixing Council's Seal to Documentation

 

 

DATE:

22 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0018

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Department of Community Services (DoCS) Local Government Salary Subsidy partially funds three positions in the Community Development Department including Coordinator Community Development, Community Development Officer Youth and Disability/Multicultural officer.  Each position is funded $11,097.

 

In May 2003 Council resolved that the Seal be affixed to Department of Community Services Grants Program – Service Specification Template.  These documents have been endorsed by Department of Community Services and a Service Agreement has been developed between DoCS and Council.

 

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

 

Service Agreement with NSW Department of Community Services in respect of partial funding of the three above positions for a period of 12 months to a total of $33,291.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.   Service Agreement with NSW Department of Community Services for Community Workers 1 & 2 and the Youth Worker positions as outlined in this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 17/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SURPLUS LAND ADJOINING 10 GIBSON PLACE, LITTLE BAY

 

 

DATE:

21 May, 2003

FILE NO:

P/013052

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 10 Gibson Place, Chifley, through his Solicitor, has applied to Council to purchase a section of unused public road adjoining his property. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The solicitor has proposed that the road would be incorporated into the yard area of 10 Gibson Place, Chifley, and would be landscaped.

 

In order to proceed with sale of the road, a closure would be required.  In the case of a road closure, Council is not the determining authority and must apply to the Department of Land & Water Conservation, in compliance with the relevant sections of the Roads Act.  Since Council has no real use of this land it is considered that Council should support James R. Markham’s clients request and submit this application.

 

Council has a responsibility to dispose of its assets in a responsible manner and it is considered that any disposal of this land (should the closures proceed) should be subject to a sale dependent on a market value of this parcel of land, set by an independent valuer.

 

This section of road carries a Council stormwater line which drains a section of Anzac Parade, as such the sale of the road by Council should be conditional upon a three (3) metre wide easement centrally located over the pipeline.

 

All costs involved in the application, including survey, legal, application and valuation costs, should be borne by the owner of 10 Gibson Place, Chifley.

 

It should also be noted that there is another potential purchaser of this section of unused road, i.e. 1251 Anzac Parade.  As part of the application process Council will need to consider the objection of any adjoining owners to the closure and sale of this land.  This will involve the property at 1251 Anzac Parade which is also adjacent to this land.

 

Prior to lodging the application with the Department of Land and Water Conservation Council will need to contact the owners of 1251 Anzac Parade and ensure that they are aware of the closure proposal and have no relevant objection to the closure and sale of this land.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council and the public do not make thorough use of this parcel of land as a section of public road and it appears to be surplus to Council’s needs.

 

Any application to close such road must comply with Section 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Roads Act 1993.   Council would need to apply for this closure on behalf of the applicant and the Department of Land and Water Conservation is the determining authority.

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation could then advise this proposal as required by the Roads Act, 1993.  It is therefore considered that Council should take the initial step of applying to the Department to close and sell the relevant section of land adjoining Lot 15, 10 Gibson Place, Chifley.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council make application to close and sell the section of road shown on the attached diagram, subject to:

 

a.         All administrative, survey and legal costs to be borne by the owner of 10 Gibson Place, Chifley.

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

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

d.         The applicant being advised that should the owner of 1251 Anzac Parade, also wish to purchase this land, Council would have to consider the best offer for the land subject to any offer being greater than or equal to the independent valuation sought by Council.)

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plan of subject area.

Correspondence from James R Markham, Solicitor.

Valuation from Ferdinands Property Valuations - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 18/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SOUTH DOWLING STREET SERVICE ROAD, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

19 May, 2003

FILE NO:

R/9999/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In association with Eastern Distributor works, a service road was created that specifically provides access for residents of South Dowling Street, Todman Avenue and associated intersecting side streets within Kensington. The RTA has previously requested that Council takes over the maintenance of this service road. However, Council resolved that a number of issues be addressed prior to consideration of acceptance of the road.

 

A letter dated 19 May 2003 has been received from the RTA in response to the issues raised by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

At its meeting held 28 August 2001, Council resolved that the RTA be advised that Council is not prepared to take over the maintenance of the service road in South Dowling Street until the RTA undertakes a number of work items. The works are summarised below with the associated RTA response. Comments with respect to the RTA responses, are provided in italics.

 

·        Reconstruct the driveways of 5-11 Dowling Street so that the driveway grades comply to Council and Australian Standard,

 

RTA Response

The existing footpath, driveways and road levels had not been affected by the Eastern Distributor works.  With the current low volume of traffic using the service road, the entering and exiting of the driveways can be done at a much slower pace than before when the service road was part of South Dowling Street.  This reduces the incidence and severity of the residents’ vehicles scraping on the driveway.

 

Furthermore, there is not a lot of room between the kerb line and the property boundary to allow the reduction of the driveway grades.  Longer driveways would impact on the property.

 

Therefore, it is considered that reconstruction of the driveways should be carried out by the developer in the future when the property is redeveloped.

 

Comments

The RTA response that reconstruction of driveways to nominated standards is constrained by internal property levels and existing footway width is acknowledged and considered reasonable.

 

·        Reconstruct the eastern footpath to a standard that is acceptable to Council,

 

RTA Response

As mentioned above, the eastern footpath had not been affected by the Eastern Distributor works.  The maintenance of the footpath has always been the responsibility of the Council.

 

Comments

Council has undertaken selected reconstruction works to eastern footpath since 2001. RTA response that footpath has always been Council responsibility to maintain, is acknowledged and considered reasonable.

 

  ·      Provide evidence by an independent pavement consultant that the drainage of the landscaped areas in the median east of the noise wall is adequate and will not affect the road pavement of the service road,

 

RTA Response

A copy of a report prepared by LB Dowling & Associates Pty Ltd dated 8 April 2003 is attached.  The report concludes that the drainage of the landscaped areas is adequate.

 

Comments

RTA commissioned report prepared by LB Dowling & Associates Pty. Ltd. concludes apparent adequacy of drainage of the landscaped area, and is considered reasonable.

 

·        Reseal the road pavement

 

RTA Response

As indicated in the report prepared by LB Dowling & Associates, the service road pavement is in sound condition and is providing a high level of serviceability despite the presence of a number of minor defects.  Accordingly resealing the road pavement is not considered necessary in the near future. 

 

Comments

While the need for resurfacing is not immediate, a proportion of the design life of the pavement has been consumed, and resurfacing will be required at future date. The current estimated cost to resurface the pavement is $40,000.    

 

·        Construct a playground in the reserve bounded by Ingram Street and Dowling Lane as it is considered to be an item of environmental improvement to the area and also an upgrade of facilities adjacent to Southern Cross Drive required as a result of the increased traffic from the Eastern Distributor and the ultimate extension of the M5 Motorway.

 

RTA Response

The construction of the playground was identified as a priority 4 item in the Local Area Improvement Program report.  It was not required as an environmental improvement to the area as a result of the Eastern Distributor project. 

 

Comments

The RTA’s assertion that the playground was originally identified as part of the Local Area Improvement Programme for Kensington, but was not prioritised for works as a result of the Eastern Distributor, is acknowledged.  The estimated cost of providing a playground in Ingram Street and Dowling Lane is $50,000. The location for the playground is zoned 6A Open Space and was declared as Public Reserve under the care, control, and management of the Council of the City of Randwick, in the New South Wales Government Gazette No.47 dated 14 May 1993. .

 

The RTA is prepared to make a contribution of up to $70,000 in the form of a special grant to the costs of resealing the road pavement and constructing a playground in the reserve bounded by Ingram Street and Dowling Lane. The offer of this contribution presumes approval for construction of any playground on the RTA land zoned Open Space.  

 

Further to Council’s previously resolved items, transfer of the service road to Council as local road will require Council to undertake the maintenance of the of the landscaped area adjacent the sound wall. Consequently, the condition of the landscaped area adjacent the sound wall shall be assessed to determine any works to be undertaken prior to transfer to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The service road in South Dowling Street to the east of the noise wall is functioning as a local road. The RTA’s response to issues detailed in Council’s resolution from its meeting held 28 August 2001, including the proposed contribution of $70,000 to the costs of resealing the road pavement and constructing a playground in Ingram Street and Dowling Lane, is considered satisfactory. Consequently, Council should accept the transfer of the service road as a local road and the associated maintenance responsibilities, subject to an assessment of the condition of the landscaped area adjacent the sound wall, and the RTA meeting the cost to address any identified deficiencies; and the RTA meeting the cost for any legal, survey or administrative costs required to facilitate the transfer. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

1.   Council accept the RTA’s response to issues detailed in Council’s resolution from its meeting held 28 August 2001;

2.   Council accept the transfer of the service road as a local road, and the associated maintenance responsibilities, subject to :

a.   the RTA’s proposed contribution of $70,000 to the costs of resealing the road pavement and constructing a playground in Ingram Street and Dowling Lane;

b.   an assessment of the condition of the landscaped area adjacent the sound wall, and the RTA meeting the cost to address any identified deficiencies;

c.   the RTA meeting the cost for any legal, survey or administrative costs required to facilitate the transfer. 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Attachment A - Letter from RTA dated 19 May 2003

Attachment B - Report to RTA by LB Dowling & Assoc. Pty Ltd

Attachment C - Extract of NSW Govt. Gazette dated 14 May 2003  

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 19/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

32 BEACH STREET, COOGEE - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

 

 

DATE:

19 May, 2003

FILE NO:

P/004045

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At an Extraordinary Meeting held on 17th December, 2003, Council considered the attached report from the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services dated 12th December, 2002, on the above matter and resolved, THAT:-

 

“a)       The contents of the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 153/2002 be noted;

 

b)         Mr. Sweeney be requested to demonstrate the extent of his compliance with the conditions of approval attached to the construction of the pool and garage;

 

c)         Council retain the services of a suitably qualified Drainage Consultant to carry out an analysis of a projected flood frequency including depths of Mr. Sweeney’s property, should full compliance with the conditions of approval be achieved; and

 

d)         Should further investigations be required, the Drainage Consultants be retained to closely examine the implications of the two (2) drainage options referred to in the Report.”

 

Mr Sweeney was advised of this resolution by letter dated 30th December, 2002 and has not as yet responded to condition (b) of the resolution although he had been in regular contact with Council officers since that time in view of the recent storms that have occurred.

 

As a consequence of conditions (c) and (d), Bonacci Rickard, a consultancy company, with existing knowledge of the situation at Beach Street, were retained to prepare a report in line with Council’s resolutions for consideration by Council.  The final draft of this report was sent to Council by e-mail on 13th May, 2003.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Sweeney’s comments:

 

Mr Sweeney was permitted to read through the report and stated that he disagreed with a number of comments stated in the report.

 

He disputed that he had ever made a claim against Council and he also claimed that his house has also, on occasions, been flooded.  The report only refers to flooding of the swimming pool.    He indicated that the development consent related to “new” fences and not the existing boundary fences and that the garage that he built was constructed 300mm above the adjoining ground levels.  There appears to be an issue as to whether or not the consultants have thought that Mr. Sweeney’s office, which is adjacent to the pool, was thought to have been the “garage”.  Mr. Sweeney claims that the “office” which also floods, pre-dates the construction of the pool and garage.

 

Mr Sweeney also disagrees that the overland flow path runs through his property as the low point in Beach Street is some metres from his property frontage.  He also claimed that the CDS (Gross Pollutant) Unit is not the sole cause of his problems since he had been flooded prior to its installation.  He also indicated that there could be legal problems in providing an overland flow gap in his boundary fence 2.25 metres wide and 300mm deep because this boundary fence also acts as his pool fence.  This is a valid concern and is covered later in the report.

 

Hydraulic Assessment

 

The consultants have indicated that the existing system is not even capable of coping with a 1 in 2 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

They have indicated that by carrying out the works suggested in Options 1 and 2 of the report  i.e. implementation of a redesigned gross pollutant trap diversion weir to reduce constriction of flow and an improvement in the entry conditions for stormwater to access the existing system, would achieve a 1 in 2 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) capacity in the system. 

 

As indicated at the bottom of page 8 of the report “it would be prudent to provide an overland flow path through the property for a 1 in 10 year ARI storm even.  Since overland flows enter the rear of the property in a number of locations.  It would be necessary to provide a catch drain at the rear of the property to direct overland flows into a formalised overland flow path channel.  An effective method of catching flows at the rear of the property would be to construct a small retaining wall with a weir slot to divert flows into a formalised overland flow channel.  To convey the overland flows from a 1 in 10 year ARI (Q = 1.4m3/s) event it would be necessary to provide a channel 2.25m wide and 300mm deep.”

 

Mr. Sweeney suggested that this could cause problems since it forms part of a pool fence.  The consultant has confirmed that the channel could be altered at the boundary fence to provide an opening of 4.5m x 150mm which should comply with the pool fence regulations.

 

The report suggests Options 3 and 4 would be an improvement for overland flows through Mr. Sweeney’s property.  However, both of these options comprise the construction and or reconstruction of a major trunk drainage requiring a very detailed design.  Either option could cost between $350,000 to $600,000 depending on services and/or the reconstruction of pipes through private properties.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The cost of implementing Options 1 and 2 is approximately $30,000 and it is the opinion of Council officers and the consultants that an overland flow path does currently exist through Mr. Sweeney’s property and that full compliance with his conditions of consent combined with Options 1 and 2 could improve the system to cope with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. 

 

The report indicates that Mr. Sweeney will still suffer some overland flow for storms greater than a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event even if Options 3 or 4 are implemented. Therefore, the provision of a formalised overland flow path is imperative to control the stormwater into flowing where it does the least harm until it reaches Beach Street and Council’s street system in front of Mr. Sweeney’s property.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

(a)        The $30,000 to carry out the works suggested in Option 1 and 2 in the consultant’s report is to be funded from an appropriate vote in the 2003/2004 budget

 

(b)        Mr. Sweeney be advised that Council requires him to comply fully with the conditions of consent for his pool and garage and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

DAIS Report 153/2002 to Extraordinary Council Meeting 17  December, 2002

Under Separate Cover - Stormwater  Drainage Assessment prepared by Bonacci Rickard Pty Ltd     

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 153/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

32 BEACH STREET, COOGEE - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

 

 

DATE:

12 December, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2136 xr P/004045

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The resident of 32 Beach Street (Mr Phillip Sweeney) has lodged a claim against Council for damage to his pool at this address for the alleged poor performance of Council’s trunk drainage system.  Mr. Sweeney indicated at the time of the claim that overland flows have caused flooding of the pool on five (5) separate occasions since January 1999. 

 

Since the claim was lodged, this situation has allegedly happened again during the storm on the afternoon of Friday, 30th November, 2002.  This brings the number of occurrences to six (6) in approximately three (3) years.

 

Bonacci Rickard (NSW) Pty Ltd were engaged by the insurance assessors Crawford and Company to undertake an independent review of the drainage at the above address and to comment on possible strategies to alleviate the problems at this location.  (A copy of this report is attached and is self explanatory).

 

Subsequent to the last event which occurred on 30th November, 2002, the Mayor and Council’s Design Manager visited the site and spoke to Mr. Sweeney and a few of the adjoining affected residents in Arden Street, upstream of Mr. Sweeney’s property.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Report

 

The report by Bonacci Rickard indicates that Council’s trunk drainage system which runs through Mr. Sweeney’s property from Arden Street “is capable of conveying a storm greater than the 1 in  2 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event from Arden Street to Beach Street but overflows during a 1 in 5 year ARI storm event such that approximately 480 litres per second would flow through the overland flow path”.

 

The report goes on to say that trunk drainage systems are usually designed to convey storms typically greater than 1 in 5 year storm event and that storms in excess of this should be channelled along a defined  overland flow route..

 

The consultants have noted that as a consequence of Mr. Sweeney’s application to build the swimming pool and garage on his property, “In their notice of determination April 1996, Council clearly identified that there is an overland flow path passing through the property of 32 Beach Street.  This above ground overland flow path would be considered to be part of the major / minor drainage system.  The following conditions were imposed upon the development:

 

·    Create a drainage easement over the existing trunk pipeline.

 

·    “The landscaping/paving within the required drainage easement shall be lowered and constructed with a vee drain formation to direct overland flow of stormwater that may travel through the property.”

 

·    “All new fences located across the required drainage easement shall be an open form type or have a 3m wide by 0.5m high opening to allow  overland stormwater flow to pass unimpeded.”

 

·    “The applicant shall construct the proposed swimming pool coping course and the floor level of the proposed garage a minimum of 300mm above the existing adjacent ground level.  This condition is required to reduce the possibility of overland stormwater flow entering these areas.”

 

It is noted from the report and site visits that these conditions have not been complied with.  The report goes on to indicate that the frequency of reported flooding is excessive compared to the apparent capacity of the pipe system which may indicate that some unknown factor may be affecting the hydraulic capacity of the pipe system.

 

The report suggests the following potential factors that may be contributing to the flooding:

 

·    Runoff from properties adjacent to 32 Beach Street, prior to entering Council’s stormwater system.

·    Pit or pipe blockage.

·    Inadequate pit inlet capacity in the low point of Arden Street.

·    Poor performance of the downstream GPT which has caused backwater effects on the pipe system.

·    Freak storm events above the design capacity of the piped drainage system.”

 

As a conclusion to their report, the consultants state:  “In the Notice of Determination, April 1996, Council identified that there is an overland flow path through the subject property and they placed appropriate development controls on construction to ensure that flood damage to the subject property would not occur.  It is yet to be conclusively determined if these controls have been implemented to a satisfactory standard.

 

Council’s drainage system has a design standard less than the 1 in 5 year ARI.  It is typically desirable for trunk drainage systems to have a greater capacity than this.  Council should investigate undertaking works to either diver flows away from Arden Street low point or to increase the capacity of the trunk drainage system through the private properties.

 

Council should undertake further CCTV investigation of their pipe system to ensure that the pipes are not blocked or damaged.”

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

At the site meeting with the Mayor and the Design Manager, both Mr. Sweeney and affected neighbours confirmed the increase in frequency of flooding at this location.

 

The residents have pointed to the roundabout and a block of units at 85-87 Arden Street as recent occurrences which may have affected the drainage system in recent years.  A preliminary inspection of the roundabout indicates that while the immediate area in the vicinity of the roundabout may have been altered by the construction, the level of Clovelly Road rises in both directions from Arden Street and has done so for many years and is therefore unlikely to have been the recent cause of these problems.  The units at 85-87 Arden Street were conditioned to provide on-site detention combined with an infiltration system which, if working correctly, should actually be an improvement to the drainage situation. 

 

Mr and Mrs Sweeney also indicated that they are also concerned that due to recent flood water levels (i.e. up to 0.5m above ground at the pool), their home could also become inundated and Mrs Sweeney indicated that at the first signs of rain, the furniture is raised above the floor levels and the carpets are lifted.

 

Upgrading Options

 

Due to the limited time available, Council officers have considered two concept options for upgrading of the drainage system affecting these properties:-

 

OPTION 1:      Directing a considerable section of the catchment by intercepting the stormwater at Clovelly Road and conveying this water in an easterly direction in Clovelly Road and then south down Beach Street to the low point in Beach Street just south of Mr. Sweeney’s property to give a system capable of coping with a 1 in 20 year storm event.  The preliminary estimated cost of this option is $400,000.  These costs do not consider any alteration or relocation of services which may be required as a consequence of these works.

Advantages:-               Elimination of work in private property & damage to private buildings.

Disadvantages:-          Higher costs, by-pass of entry points in system caused by blockages.

 

OPTION 2:      Upgrading of the trunk drainage line through 79 Arden Street and Mr. Sweeney’s property at 32 Beach Street to cater for a 1 in 20 year storm event.   The preliminary estimated costs of this option is $300,000.

Advantages:-  More direct route and concentrates on the trouble spot.  Less expensive.

Disadvantages:-          Work on private property, negotiations of easements, relocation of at least one structure (a garage belonging to 79 Arden Street).

 

Other Considerations

 

Council should also note that there are other problem location in the City of Randwick which are considered to be as severe if not worse scenarios than this location.

 

The four (4) which most readily come to mind are at 33 Arcadia Street which has an intrepid low point with no drainage escape route outside the front door, Forsyth Street near Rainbow Street which causes an underground carpark  (serving a block of units) to flood in severe storms,  Alfred Street where an entrapped lowpoint causes property damage, and Bunnerong Road at Botany Cemetery which is a problem currently being investigated by Council and Department of Land and Water Conservation officers.

 

Council needs to determine its priorities in these matters and must consider the fact that a certain portion of Mr. Sweeney’s problem can be attributed to the lack of compliance of his pool and landscaped areas to the conditions of approval which were applied to his development back in 1996.  It must be also noted that Council records indicates that Mr. Sweeney has never sought a final inspection on the pool and garage which explains why action has never been taken to correct this situation.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Further investigations are required to ascertain whether or not there are any blockages or other issues which could reduce the frequency of the inundation being affected  by Mr Sweeney.  These investigations should also include an analysis of a projected flooding frequency should full compliance with the conditions of approval (referred to in the report) be achieved.

 

These investigations would allow Council to make a more informed decision as to the possible allocation of funds in the next budget for any upgrading works which are deemed unnecessary.

 

It is considered that due to the time constraints involved, Council should retain the services of a suitably qualified drainage engineer and to carry out these investigations and, if necessary, to closely examine the implications of the two (2) options explained in this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

(a)        The report be noted.

(b)        Mr. Sweeney be requested to demonstrate the extent of this compliance with the conditions of approval attached to the construction of the pool and garage.

(c)        Council retain the services of a suitably qualified Drainage Consultant to carry out an analysis of a projected flood frequency including depths of Mr. Sweeney’s property should full compliance with the conditions of approval be achieved.

(d)        Should further investigations be required, the Drainage Consultants be retained to closely examine the implications of the two (2) drainage options referred to in this report

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from Crawford & Company Pty Ltd

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 





 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 20/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

REGIONAL TENDER FOR DRY RECYCLABLE RECEIVAL, SORTING AND MARKETING

 

 

DATE:

21 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2455

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The former Southern Sydney Waste Board (SSWB) had developed within its three year 2000 – 2003 Regional Waste Plan, a Regional Recyclables Marketing Programme. The objective of this initiative was to ensure the co-coordinated and effective management and marketing of Council collected recyclables, on a regional basis.

 

In June 2001, the Minister of the Environment announced to the NSW Legislative Assembly the replacement of the NSW Waste Boards by a new State agency - Resource NSW (RNSW)

 

As part of the transitional process, the SSWB submitted a number of projects for consideration to be continued by RNSW. One of several programmes to receive ministerial approval for continuation, was the Regional Recyclables Marketing Programme

 

Since the departure of the Board, the process of developing this project has proceeded through the activities of the Waste Management Group and SSROC Secretariat. As a result, Waste Management Group coordinated by SSROC Secretariat has developed a tender document for receival, sorting and marketing of recyclables collected from kerbside.

 

To achieve better outcome from this regional tender, the Executive Director of SSROC has written to all the Councils in Southern Sydney Region seeking commitment to this tender.

 

ISSUES:

 

Expected Benefits from Regional Contract

 

The intention of this contact is to achieve economic, environmental and social benefits for member councils by aggregating dry recyclables collected by individual Councils in their kerbside collection services for processing and disposal to end markets under a collective set of arrangements

 

 

It is anticipated that there will be cost savings to member Councils participating in this proposed service, due to the aggregation of kerbside collected product and delivery to a single service provider. Certain Councils are under existing obligations to direct their collected material to specific disposal points - or materials recovery facilities (MRF’s) - which will limit their ability to participate in this regional project.

 

 

Randwick’s Existing Contract

 

Collex Pty Ltd is Council’s contractor for collection of recyclable at kerbside and under the contract Collex is responsible for sorting and marketing of the recyclables. Sydney Recycling Centre at Burrows Road, Alexandria, is the designated Material Recovery Facility for the purpose of this contract. After this Material Recovery Facility was damaged by hailstorm in 1999, Collex wrote to Council seeking Council’s approval for relocation of the facility to Chullora and a contract price variation to cover additional cost. Council at its meeting on 23 May 2000 resolved: “Agree the relocation of the MRF to Chullora and the short term additional costs imposed from this change, pending development of a new and more local MRF”.  Collex is looking for opportunities to sort and market the recyclables at a more local MRF.

 

Due to its existing contractual arrangements with Collex Randwick is unable to participate in this regional contract before the contract expires in December 2007. There are several other Councils in the region who are unable to participate in this regional contract due to similar reasons as well.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is expected that a regional contract for sorting and marketing of recyclables collected from kerbside will bring economic, environmental and social benefits to the participating councils.

 

Due to its existing contractual arrangement with Collex, Randwick is unable to participate in this regional contract at this stage.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Encourage the regional tender initiative for receival, sorting and marketing of recyclable collected at kerbside by Councils in Southern Sydney region;

 

2.   Note that Randwick City Council is unable to participate in this tendering process due to Council’s existing contractual arrangements with Collex until the contract expires; and

3.   Authorize the General Manager to sign off on the tender specification prior to tender advertisement as appropriate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.Letter from Executive Director of SSROC

2.Proposal for a Dry Recyclables Regional Contract for SSROC Member Councils

3.Regional Recycling Tender (Milestone Plan)

4.Regional Recycling Tender (Pre-Tender Activities Schedule)  

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 



Proposal for a Dry Recyclables Regional Contract for SSROC Member Councils

 

 

Part 1   Introduction

 

 

1.1       The Purpose of this Report

 

This report provides information to SSROC member Councils on the reasons, and potential benefits to councils, for establishing a regional contract for the aggregation, processing and disposal of dry recyclable product, collected from councils’ kerbside recycling services, for end market us. It gives a background to the events and activities carried out for developing such a regional approach, through the work of the former waste board and decisions reached by the SSROC Executive

 

Details are provided of consultation which has been carried out at various levels of council, and of the procurement process which is currently being undertaken

 

The report concludes with a set of recommendations put forward to council, to allow opportunities for these region wide arrangements to be secured

 

Part 2    Background Information

 

2.1       The intent

 

            The intention of this project is to achieve economic, environmental and social benefits for member councils, by aggregating dry recyclables product - collected by individual councils in their kerbside collection services - for processing and disposal to end markets, under a collective set of arrangements

 

There is no intention at this time to change the existing collection service arrangements, which each Council is operating and managing individually

 

It is anticipated that there will be cost savings to member councils participating in this proposed service, due to the aggregation of kerbside collected product and delivery to a single service provider. Certain councils are under existing obligations to direct their collected material to specific disposal points - or materials recovery facilities (MRF’s) - which will limit their ability to participate in this regional project

 

The ability to aggregate product for this tender has been endorsed by an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Ruling. The Commission concluded that a region-wide initiative of this type would result in a small public benefit (arising from improved efficiency and environmental outcomes), which would outweigh the minimal public detriment arising from these arrangements.

 

 

2.2       Previous Work of the Southern Sydney Waste Board

             

            The former Southern Sydney Waste Board (SSWB) had developed within its three year 2000 – 2003 Regional Waste Plan, a Regional Recyclables Marketing Programme. The objective of this initiative was to ensure the co-ordinated and effective management and marketing of Council collected recyclables, on a regional basis

 

In June 2001, the Minister of the Environment announced to the NSW Legislative Assembly the replacement of the NSW Waste Boards by a new State agency - Resource NSW (RNSW)

 

As part of the transitional process, the SSWB submitted a number of projects for consideration to be continued by RNSW. One of several programmes to receive ministerial approval for continuation, was the Regional Recyclables Marketing Programme

 

 

2.3       SSROC Executive Endorsement of the Project

 

            Since the departure of the Board, the process of developing this project has proceeded through the activities of the Waste Management Group and SSROC Secretariat. The SSROC Executive has been kept fully informed of these developments. Extracts from the meeting reports of information relating to this initiative are set down below:

 

May 2001

SSROC advised that RNSW has agreed to the continuation of the regional contract for receival and marketing of council-collected dry recyclables

February 2002

Waste managers identify the Dry Recyclables Recycling Contract as a priority project. SSROC endorses the project

August 2002

SSROC advised of the ACCC Ruling for the proposal to tender dry recyclables on a regional basis. Objection to this proposal by Waste Services NSW was withdrawn, after negotiations with Resource NSW

February 2003

Full details of proposed Regional Recycling Tender were provided. A copy of the full report to SSROC is available on request

 

 

 

Note in particular, the reference to SSROC writing to member councils recommending that they agree to participate in a regional recycling tender for the processing of dry recyclables

 

 

Adjustments to the ACCC judgement have resulted in the extension of the deadline by which the tender process needs to be completed by 12.12.03. Details of this ruling are available on request

 

 

2.4 Other Influences

 

The IMROC group of councils has also undertaken a similar procurement approach to that being undertaken by SSROC. Given the requirements of their ACCC ruling, the IMROC councils proceeded to tender in January of this year. The tenders received are currently being evaluated, with an intention to let the contract during the middle of the year

 

Part 3  The Proposal

 

3.1       Consultation Process

           

The Waste Management Group is supportive of the procurement approach and the timetable which has been drawn up

 

The General Managers of each member council have been briefed about the procurement process and look forward to being kept informed of the project’s progress

 

A presentation was made to the SSROC Public Works Management Group (comprising of Directors of Public Works or equivalent) on 28th March to brief the Directors of the current status and procurement process for this tender. This group will also be kept fully briefed throughout the project

 

 

3.2       Procurement Process

 

A regional working group of council waste managers and supply managers has been formed to drive the SSROC tender process. This group, known as the Dry Recyclables Regional Tender (DRRT) Team, has reviewed the IMROC documentation, which may form the basis for the SSROC procurement documents

 

The following activities have been carried out in the past two months:

 

·          A Milestone Plan has been prepared and presented to the General Managers of member councils to advise them of the activities required to complete the procurement process, to the timeframe required by the ACCC ruling – refer to Attachment 1 for details of this plan

 

·          A Risk Management Workshop was carried out in early March, to identify the likely risks of project failure. As a result of this workshop, an outline action plan has been drawn up to detail actions for mitigating and controlling these risks. A copy of this Action Plan is available on request

 

·              The DRRT Team has progressed the preparation of the tender documentation with the support and active participation of the SSROC Supply Group

 

·          A Pre-Tender Activities Schedule has been prepared to identify the tasks to be completed prior to tendering this service. Refer to Attachment 2 for details of this schedule

 

 

The tender documents are being prepared to provide flexibility and a degree of certainty for councils in:

·          How tenderers will present their proposals for the delivery of services required by councils

·          Sufficient timeframe for councils to consider the offer presented by the preferred tenderer

·          The opportunity for councils currently under contract, to determine whether they wish to commit to this service contract once their contracts expire

 

 

3.3       Tender Selection Process

 

A tender selection panel will convene shortly after the tender closing date. The panel will assess tenders against the selection criteria published in the tender documents. In making a recommendation to councils, the tender panel will be guided by the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 which states in Section 19 that:

 

‘After considering the tenders submitted for a proposed contract, the council must….. accept the tender that, having regard to all the circumstances, appears to be the most advantageous ….”

 

This means that each council participating in this initiative retains the right to accept, by resolution, the recommended tender. It also means that the tender panel, having taken into consideration all circumstances, will recommend the tenderer that appears to offer the most advantage to councils

 

However, as tenderers will be asked to submit tenders based on the combined annual tonnage of recyclable materials for all councils not already covered by a contract, there is an expectation that participating councils will accept the recommended tenderer

 

 

Recommendation

 

The following recommendations are submitted for endorsement by Council:

 

1.         That Council receive and note the report

 

2.         That Council agree to participate in the regional tender for the processing and disposal to end markets of dry recyclable product collected under current Council collection arrangements

 

3.         That Council authorize the General Manager, or his/her delegate, to sign off on the tender specification prior to tender advertisement

 

Note that SSROC is has developed a tender document for regional MRFing and that will bring benefit to the participating Councils and that due to Council’s current contractual arrangements with Collex Council will be unable to participate in this contract……….

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 

Regional Recycling Tender

 

Milestone Plan

 


Regional Dry Recyclables Procurement Milestone Plan - 04.3.032

Date

Oval: S1SSROC (S)

Council (C)

Procurement (PR)

Milestone: When

03/03

 

 

Oval: P1

S1: Project Plan endorsed

P1: Risk Plan completed

17/03

 

Oval: S2

 

S2: Contract preparation endorsed

31/03

 

 

 

14/04

 

 

Oval: C1

Oval: P2

P2: Draft documents ready for review

28/04

 

 

 

C1: Draft documentation presented to council representatives for comment

 

12/05

 

 

 

 

26/05

 

 

Oval: S3

 

Oval: P3

P3: Draft documents finalised

S3: Participating councils endorse process

      + Report to SSROC Executive

09/06

 

 

 

Oval: C2

Oval: P4

P4:  Procurement documents completed

C2: General Manager’s sign off documents

23/06

 

 

 

 

Oval: P5

 

P5: Pre-Tender meeting held

30/06

 

 

 

 

Oval: P6

 

P6: Tender advertised

14/07

 

 

 

 

28/07

 

Oval: P7

P7:  Tenders Close & evaluation

       commenced

04/08

 

 

 

18/08

Oval: S4

Oval: C3

Oval: P8

P8:  Preferred Tenderer shortlisted(25/8/3)

C3: Councils informed / comments rec’d

S4:   SSROC Executive Report

01/09

 

 

 

 

15/09

                    

 

 

 

29/09

 

 

 

 

13/10

 

Oval: C4

Oval: P9

P9:  Negotiations completed

C4: Councils informed / comments rec’d

 

27/10

 

Oval: C5

 

 

10/11

 

Oval: P10

P10:  Draft contracts completed (3/11/3)

C5:   Contracts submitted to GMs for

        comment

24/11

 

Oval: S5

Oval: C6 

Oval: P11

 

P11:  Comments received & final draft of

        contracts completed

S5:    Contracts endorsed by SSROC

        Executive

08/12

 

 

 

C6: GM’s sign contracts for services on behalf of Councils

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 04

Regional Contract Commences

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

 Regional Recycling Tender

 

Pre - Tender Activities Schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Dry Recyclables Regional Procurement

Pre-Tender Activities – 20.03.031

Date

SSROC / Council (S)

Procurement (P)

Milestone: When

17/03

 

 

Oval: P1

P1:  IMROC Documentation and briefing

      notes issued for DRRT Team review

24/03

 

 

Oval: S1

Oval: P2

P2:  DRRT Team review of draft

       specification

S1:  Present procurement approach to

      Public Works Directors’ Group

31/03

 

 

 

Oval: P4Oval: P3

P3:  Supply Group review of draft

       procurement documents

P4:  Development of specification by

       DRRT Team

07/04

 

 

Oval: S2

Oval: P5

P5:  Structure of procurement documents

       completed and issued to Waste

S2:   SSROC CS+A Committee briefing

14/04

 

 

Oval: P6

P6:  Draft of procurement documents

      completed

21/04

 

 

 

 

 

28/04

 

 

Oval: S3

Oval: P7

P7:  Procurement documents presented for

      Waste Management Group comment

S3:  Procurement documents submitted to

      Public Works Directors’ Group

05/05

 

 

 

 

 

12/05

 

 

Oval: S4

 

S4:  Presentation of procurement update to

      GM Group for review and comment

19/05

 

 

Oval: S5

Oval: P8

P8:  Comments received and internal

       reviews completed

S5:  Endorsement of procurement sought

      from participating councils

26/05

 

 

Oval: S6

 

 

S6:  Project report submitted to SSROC

      Executive

 

02/06

 

 

 

 

 

 

09/06

 

 

 

Oval: P9

P9:  Revision of procurement documents

       Completed (Note 1)

16/06

 

 

 

 

 

23/06

 

 

Oval: S7

Oval: P10

P10:  Pre-tender industry briefing

S7:    Participating councils commit to

        service procurement

 

30/06

 

 

Oval: P11

 

P11:  Tender advertised

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 21/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE OVAL CONCEPT PLAN - UPGRADE OF FACILITIES PROJECT UPDATE.

 

 

DATE:

22 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3054

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In response to the recommendations of the Coogee Oval Draft Plan of Management and ongoing concerns of the users of the Coogee Oval, Architects were recently engaged to undertake a preliminary study for the upgrade of facilities at the Oval.

 

This report provides an update as to the current status of this project.

 

BACKGOUND:

 

In 1998 Randwick City Council completed the Coogee Oval Draft Plan of Management (POM). This comprehensive plan provides direction and recommendations for the oval  within the bounds of the existing layout of the precinct and within available funds apparent at the time of the completion of the POM.

 

In response to the recommendations of the Coogee Oval Draft Plan of Management and ongoing concerns of the users of the Coogee Oval, Architects were recently engaged to undertake a preliminary study for the upgrade of facilities at the Oval.

 

The Consultant Brief for the project was forwarded to three Architects to obtain quotations for the provision of design services for the development of the Coogee Oval Concept Plan – Upgrade of Facilities. Architects, Timothy Court & Company Pty Ltd were the successful Consultants.

 

In the Consultant Brief it stated that the Concept Plan should:

·    Identify and resolve (as far as possible) the competing demands of the stakeholders

·    Coalesce the existing developments, disparate components of the site and demands into a comprehensive whole

·    Establish a robust sense of identity for a first class sporting facility

·    Resolve the best value for money Concept Plan

·    Comply with the relevant planning requirements of Council

·    Consider opportunities which may aid in the future funding of the Oval

·    Develop facilities that do not encourage overuse of the fields.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The 1998 draft Plan of Management provides a comprehensive explanation of issues that exist at the Oval. Since the POM some issues have been partially resolved. Further to this new issues have arisen since the completion of the POM.

 

The major issues relevant to this Brief are

·    Current lack of a Maintenance Facility for RCC maintenance staff in the Coogee Beach area

·    Overuse of the playing fields at Coogee Oval

·    Existing facilities within the Oval that require updating and refurbishment

·    Senior Citizens Building Site (Portion 1496) is currently owned by the Crown. (remainder of site is vested in Council) This makes site planning problematic.

·    The Senior Citizens Building is structurally unsound and is to be demolished.

·    Sports users dissatisfaction with lack of certain facilities particularly those expected by 1st grade players.

·    Lack of Sponsor facilities

·    The oval is prone to flooding

 

In response to the major issues the described in further detail the requirements for the project.

 

Facilities Building

 

RCC wishes to include a small facility for RCC maintenance staff. This will eliminate the need for such a facility to be provided in the Coogee Beach foreshore area and should fit appropriately within the concept plan for the Oval.

 

Multipurpose Community Facility

 

The current Senior Citizens building has been deemed to be structurally unsound. It is therefore intended that this building is demolished and replaced with a “multipurpose centre”. Generally minimum requirements for the new facility will include the following:

 

·    Multipurpose Hall area

·    Female/male toilets

·    Kitchen area

 

 

Upgraded Sports Facilities

 

An assessment needs to be made of the existing support facilities provided for the Sports Groups (particularly 1st grade players) that use the Oval. This may require the upgrading of existing facilities or the introduction of new facilities.

 

Further design requirements are:

Ø The Grandstand façade must remain

Ø Consideration of impact of proposals on surrounding land owners

Ø Circulation patterns for public, sponsors and players are to be assessed

Ø The composition of the existing amenities i.e. Male toilets, female toilets, change rooms etc is to be assessed

Ø Appropriate quantities and layout of player facilities, public facilities and administration facilities are to be assessed in the concept plan

 

PROGRESS OF PROJECT

 

The Architects are currently undertaking the following stages:

 

Phase 1 -         Project Scope/ Brief Confirmation

The Architects have now comprehended the project scope.. This has resulted from discussions  with Councillors, RCC officers, and relevant Stakeholders.

 

Phase 2 -         Project Investigation

This includes an assessment of the suitability of current facilities and comprehension of major issues. At this stage the Architects have carried out a detailed investigation of the site , consulted a number of Council officers incl Community Services and Assets and Infrastructure. They have also discussed the project scope with Ward Councillors and Stakeholder representatives. 

 

Phase 3  -        Draft Concept Plan

After the initial phases described above the Architect will be providing Draft Concept Plan for further discussion and review. This plan should be available in June 2003. The plan will provide proposals for improvements and additional facilities to the Oval.

 

The plan will be thoroughly reviewed by RCC officers and presented to Stakeholders

 

Phase 4 -         Final Concept Plan and Report.

Ultimately a Final Concept Plan and Report will be produced that fulfils the requirements of the Brief and provides a Concept Plan for the improvements to the Oval.

 

The Concept Plan will need to be followed by detailed design and documentation phases as well as identification of the funding for the project.

 

Once Council has accepted an appropriate plan any works arising from it must gain statutory planning approval.

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In response to the Coogee Oval Plan of Management and ongoing concerns about the condition of the facilities at the oval Randwick City Council have engaged Architects to produce a Coogee Oval Concept Plan – Upgrade of Facilities

 

The initial phases of this project are underway and the Architect will be providing the  preliminary Concept Plan in June 2003.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note the stages and components of the Coogee Oval Concept Plan – Upgrade of Facilities project.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 22/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

VEGETATION REMOVAL AND RECTIFICATION WORKS WITHIN LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MALABAR.

 

 

DATE:

21 May, 2003

FILE NO:

P/000925 xr  D/0753/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 25 March, 2003, resolved that the Department of Corrective Services immediately provide a detailed programme of works for the vegetative rectification works within the Long Bay Gaol complex, and that should this not be forthcoming Class 5 legal proceedings would be initiated in the Land and Environment Court in its Injunctive Jurisdiction against the Department.

 

ISSUES:

 

As a result of relative inaction over a protracted period by the Department of Corrective Services in dealing with the re-vegetation of the area within the Long Bay Gaol complex where large numbers of trees were illegally removed on 5 June, 2002, the General Manager wrote to the Commissioner for Corrective Services on 17 March, 2003, and advised him that unless a reasonable and immediate response were forwarded to Council which provided a detailed programme of works for rectification, legal proceedings would be commenced against the Department in the Land and Environment Court.

 

A subsequent response to Council by the Commissioner for Corrective Services dated 8 April, 2003, failed to provide a detailed programme of works and simply intimated that should an amended DA proposal that the Department was to lodge with Council be approved, the entire vegetative rectification works project could be completed by the end of July, 2003.

 

In the context of the resolution of Council and the subsequent request for a written commitment requested of the Department, this response was viewed by Council as inadequate.

 

Council then faxed Mr Steve Thorpe, Operations Development Manager, Corrective Services Industries, and advised him of the inadequacy of this response and informed him that should Council not receive the requested programme of works by the close of business on Tuesday, 6 May, 2003, legal proceedings would be commenced immediately.

 

Mr Thorpe responded with a detailed facsimile, which asserted that finalising a programme of works had not been possible because of ongoing concerns that had been raised by residents through the community consultative process to which the Department was committed.

 

In order to address those concerns the Department had to now involve the Department of Public Works and Services in providing an amended Development Application to Council. That amended DA was lodged with Council on 9 May, 2003, and is currently being assessed.

 

Mr Thorpe also provided Council with a copy of a works programme in the form of a Gant Chart. That chart indicates that the amended earthworks and planting of the mounds would take approximately fifteen weeks to complete and that if the amended DA were approved by Council during the week ending 12 May, 2003, all works could be completed by mid-August, 2003.

 

A decision on the referred-to amended DA will be made by Council on or around 30 May, 2003, and it will then be sent to the State Government for concurrence with any conditions that may be imposed by Council.

 

This entire process is very likely to take several weeks to complete and, should Council simply sit back and wait for a response, it would almost inevitably mean the opportunity to resort to legal action would be lost.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Legal opinion provided to Council by Bowen and Gerathy very strongly makes the point that any legal action in this matter would need to be initiated against the Department of Corrective Services no later than the beginning of June, 2003.

 

Should legal proceedings not be instigated prior to that time, Council will have lost the opportunity for the Land and Environment Court to deliberate in the matter.

 

If legal proceedings were initiated against the Department by Council it would at least allow that Court to adjudicate on the matter and to make a determination regarding remediation works - as well as setting a timeframe in which any such works would be required to be completed.

 

Any such legal action could always be discontinued should the Department at any subsequent stage provide Council with a definitive programme of works accompanied by an acceptable timeframe for completion of those works.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council immediately begin Class 5 legal proceedings in the Land and Environment  Court in its Injunctive Jurisdiction again the Department of Corrective Services.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Corrective Services Advice

Tree Management Officer's memo of 6 May, 2003

Facsimile of 2 May, 2003 to Mr Steve Thorpe

Tree Management Officer's memo of 1 May, 2003  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 12/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - DETERMINATIONS

 

 

DATE:

15 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1092 xr 98/S/0090

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has handed down its Report and Determinations on fees for Councillors and Mayors for 2003/2004.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The Tribunal has awarded an increase in Councillor fees based on changes in the duties and responsibilities placed upon Mayors and Councillors in carrying out the statutory duties outlined in the 1993 Local Government Act. The change was also assessed taking into account national economic indicators, such as the inflation rate and the Wage Cost Index.

 

The Tribunal increased all minimum and maximum fees by three and a half (3.5) percent for Councillors and seven (7) percent for Mayors. The revised fee structure covers the period 1st July, 2003 to 30th June, 2004.

 

Randwick City Council is in Category 1 and the following remuneration ranges are available:

 

Councillor’s Annual Fee:                       Minimum $ 8,555 – Maximum $15,970

Mayor’s Annual Fee:                            Minimum $18,185 – Maximum $42,430

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is necessary each year for the Council to set the Councillors’ and Mayor’s Annual Fees and it is considered that the maximum fees should be applicable for the forthcoming financial year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That a Councillor’s Annual Fee of $15,970 and a Mayor’s Annual Fee of $42,430 be set for the financial year July, 2003 to June, 2004 in accordance with the range stipulated by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 31/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0815/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 815/2002 of 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra for Section 82A Review of the decision to refuse consent 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 6 May 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

6 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0815/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

Section 82A Review of the decision to refuse consent

PROPERTY:

46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

WARD:

Central Ward

APPLICANT:

Modum P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee Meeting on the 11th March, 2003 resolved that the application be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting for mediation and allow issues to be addressed.

 

A mediation meeting was held on the 26th March, 2003, with Council officers, the objector, the applicant and the owner of the subject property.  At this meeting agreement between all parties was reached regarding a reduction in area of the first floor addition and setting it back behind the existing front roof ridgeline.

 

The amended design was submitted to Council on the 7th May, 2003 and subsequently shown to the objector for comment.  The objector has verbally advised that the amended proposal is an acceptable and satisfactory response to the issues previously raised.  It is considered that the amended proposal presents a more symmetrical and less obtrusive form to Kitchener Street, a less bulky form to Beatty Street, and reduces the extent of variation to the preferred floor solutions for floor space ratio, external wall height and the length of the second storey addition.

 

Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal, for which the review is sought, is for demolition of the existing outside toilet attached to the rear of the semi-detached dwelling and alterations and additions the existing semi-detached dwelling, including a new first floor addition.  Amended plans were submitted on 7th May, 2003 addressing issues of concern outlined in the previous report to Council. 

The amended plans, locate the first floor addition behind the hipped roof ridge at the front (southern end) of the building, instead of directly above the ground floor (southern) wall on the Kitchener Street elevation of the semi-detached dwelling as originally proposed.

To enable the first floor addition to be located to the rear (north) of the existing southern (Kitchener Street end) of the roof ridge, the internal layout of the first floor addition has been re-configured to accommodate the reduced floor area.  The original proposal for the first floor had three (3) bedrooms, bathroom, W.C. and lobby, with both the lobby and the third bedroom opening onto balconies.  The amended proposal for the first floor has three bedrooms and a bathroom, with both the master bedroom and the second bedroom opening onto north and east facing balconies respectively.

On the ground floor, the proposal has been amended to convert the existing eastern entry landing to a front porch, with a balcony above.  The originally proposed eastern landing from the laundry, with a balcony above, has been extended to allow both the laundry and the lounge room to open out onto this landing, with an awning instead of a porch located over the proposed laundry door only.

 

2.    THE REVIEW

 

The applicant seeks a review of the determination to refuse consent to Development Application No. 02/00815/GA pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.  It should be noted that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, has been amended to allow, under Section 82A (3A), the applicant to make amendments to the development described in the original application, subject to the provision, under subsection Section 82A (4)(c), that the development remains substantially the same as originally proposed.

 

3.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The Section 82A Review Application was reported to Health, Building and Planning Committee of Council on the 11th March, 2003 with a recommendation for refusal  (previous reports attached).  The resolution of the meeting was as follows:-

 

“That this application be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting to allow Council officers to contact the applicant and objector and arrange mediation between the parties if possible and to address the issues raised by Council officers”

 

Consequently a meeting between the objector, the applicant and Council officers was held on the 26th March, 2003.  At this meeting, agreement was reached between all parties, to amended plans that detail the following:-

 

(a)    To set the first floor addition back behind the existing front roof ridgeline.

(b)    In consideration of (a) above, the building could be set back to the rear (north) by a further 1.2m if additional space was required to provide the required accommodation.

(c)    Internal re-configuration of room layout would be acceptable.

(d)    Re-location of the first floor balcony over the existing entry would be both acceptable and desirable.

 

Amended plans successfully detailing the above points were received on the 7 May, 2003.  These have been shown to the objector who confirmed that no objection is raised to the amended design.

 

4.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The amended application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the following comments are made in regard to the amended design compared to the original proposal.

 

4.1  Substantially the same development

 

It is considered that the amended design remains substantially the same development as originally proposed, as they both relate to alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house and include a first floor addition.  The amended design retains the same ground floor footprint as originally proposed and the same number of bedrooms as originally proposed (3), with the major variation between the two proposals being the reduction in the proposed building bulk, mass and scale to both Kitchener and Beatty Streets.

 

4.2  Streetscape presentation

 

It is considered that the amended design achieves a more reasonable and acceptable outcome, especially to the Kitchener Street façade, in terms of bulk, scale and aesthetics, with a reduction in the amount and degree of non-compliances with Council’s controls as discussed below.

 

Instead of locating the proposed second storey addition directly above the ground floor southern wall (Kitchener Street elevation) of the semi-detached dwelling, the bulk and mass of the building has been pushed back behind the common ridge of the pair of semi-detached dwellings, without any change to the originally proposed first floor rear setback.  Thus the amended design retains the front hipped roof to Kitchener Street, common to both semi-detached dwellings as a pair.  The amended proposal presents a more symmetrical and less obtrusive form to Kitchener Street and a less bulky form to Beatty Street.  It is therefore considered that the amended design achieves a more successful integration of the second storey addition of the subject semi-detached dwelling with the adjoining single storey semi-detached dwelling.

 

On the Beatty Street elevation, the amended design relocates the pilastered design element of a porch and above balcony to the ground floor front entry and above bedroom, instead of the laundry and above stair lobby as originally proposed.  This is considered a more satisfactory and logical approach to the main entrance of the building, ensuring that the design achieves a readily identifiable entry in compliance with the performance requirement of the Development Control Plan.

 

A schedule of external materials, finishes and colours was not submitted with either the application as originally proposed or as amended.  Although some concern was expressed in the previous report regarding the proposed rendering of the subject semi-detached dwelling, contrasting with the original brickwork of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling in the pair, it is considered that the reduction in bulk achieved by the amended design will significantly reduce the streetscape incongruity of the dwellings read as a pair.

 

It is considered that from the Beatty Street elevation, where the substantial mass of the building is presented, the proposed rendered building will present as a modern building and will not detract from the streetscape as long as the painted render is neutral in colour.  In regard to the Kitchener Street elevation, although the incongruity between the materials and finishes of the semi-detached dwellings as a pair is not ideal, it should be noted that this elevation is broken up by a garage and a carport, with a significant portion of common roof retained in the amended design.  The potential still remains for the adjoining semi to render their dwelling.  Accordingly it is considered that the different finishes of the two semi-detached dwellings does not sustain refusal of the application.

 

4.3  Floor space

 

The amended proposal also reduces the proposed floor space of the first floor addition by approximately 25m2, resulting in a floor space ratio of 0.67:1, down from the 0.77:1 as originally proposed.  The floor space ratio of the amended design is more in line with the maximum floor space ratio (0.65:1) set out in the preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (Development Control Plan).  The amended proposal represents only a minor departure of only approximately 7m2 instead of the excessive departure from the preferred solution of 32.1m2 as originally proposed.

 

It is considered that the floor space ratio of the proposed amended development by eliminating the bulk and mass of the building forward of the line of the front roof hip achieves a bulk and scale compatible with the character of the locality as evidenced in the surrounding built form.  Consequently, although the amended design does not satisfy the preferred solution for the site, it is considered that it achieves the performance requirements and objectives of the Development Control Plan in regard to floor area, being compatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

4.4  Wall height

 

The amended first floor design also reduces the degree of variation sought from the preferred solution for external wall height as contained within the Development Control Plan.  The amended design, by setting back the front elevation behind the existing hipped roof form, reduces the maximum wall height from 8m to 7.5m, with the preferred solution being a 7m maximum.  Additionally the length of the second storey portion is significantly reduced from 17.385m to 13.4m, with the preferred solution being 12m.  The amended design thus represents a reduced non compliance with the preferred solution for the length of the second storey, down from 44% to 11% approximately.  It is considered that the variations now proposed in regard to both external wall height and the length of the second storey portion of the addition are now acceptable.  The amended design employs a far more sensitive approach for the proposed first floor addition that maintains the existing front roof form and ensures a satisfactory contextual fit, both with the adjoining dwelling and the locality.

 

4.5  Overlooking

 

The issue of overlooking from the proposed rear (north facing) first floor balcony to the rear yard of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling to the west remains unresolved in the amended proposal.  This was a subject of concern to the neighbouring property owner in the original submission received for this application It is considered that this issue may be addressed by a privacy screen to restrict the angle of outlook.  An appropriate condition of consent is therefore contained within the Recommendation.

 

5.    CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the amended design proposed in response to Council’s resolution at its meeting of the 11th March, 2003, satisfactorily addresses the issues of bulk and scale of the proposed development, impact to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and its streetscape appearance.  It is understood that both the owners of the subject property and the objector are satisfied with the mediated outcome achieved in the amended design before Council.  Accordingly the application is now recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

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 02/00815/GA for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling, including a first floor addition, at 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1-6 Revision B prepared by Modum Pty Ltd dated 7th May, 2003 and received by Council on the 7th May, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.    The 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.

 

4.    A lattice privacy screen having a height of 1.5m is to be provided to the western side elevation of the rear (north facing) balcony. and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

5.    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.

 

6.    All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rain water heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

8.    The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

11.  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.

 

12.  The finished ground level outside of the building is required to be a minimum of:

 

·    150mm below the internal floor level of the building, or,

·    100mm below the internal floor level of the building in sandy, well drained areas, or,

·    50mm below the internal floor level of the building where an external paved area or slab is provided adjacent to the building, which is graded not less than 50mm over the first 1m away from the building,

 

Details of stormwater drainage are to be provided in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

13.  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 ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

14.  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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

        Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder),

excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)           all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

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

 

17.  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.

 

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:

 

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

 

19.  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.

 

20.  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.

 

21.  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.

 

22.  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.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures (as applicable), to ensure compliance with the terms of Council’s consent:

 

·      Sediment control measures.

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

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

 

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

 

a)     stormwater drainage

b)     external finishes and materials

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

26.  If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

·      preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·      if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and

·      at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

27.  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.

 

28.  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

 

29.  Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

30.  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.

 

31.  Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

Any damage caused to the road or footway must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

33.  A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·      location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·      location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·      location of building materials for construction;

·      provisions for public safety;

·      dust control measures;

·      site access location and construction

·      details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·      protective measures for tree preservation;

·      provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·      location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·      details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·      construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

34.  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.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

35.  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.

 

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

 

37.  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.

 

38.  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.

 

39.  Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

40.  The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

           

41.  The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

42.  During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

        Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

·    Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·    Covering of stock piles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·    Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·    Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stock piles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·    Minimisation/relocation of stock piles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·    Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

43.  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.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

45.  Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

47.  All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·      Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

·      Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

·      Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

·      Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

·      Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

48.  All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.  In this regard all contractors and employees shall adopt work practices in accordance with the requirements of WorkSafe’s Control of Inorganic Lead at Work (NOHSC:102(1994) and NOHSC:2015(1994).

 

49.  All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1.    The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A2   The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specifications must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) – Housing Provisions.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

Report to Health, Building and Planning Committee of 11/3/2002

Delegated Report dated 17/12/2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0815/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review of the decision to refuse consent

PROPERTY:

 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Modum P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Andrews, Bastic and Sullivan.

 

The issue central to the application revolves around the extension of the first floor addition forward to the street from the existing roof ridge and the vertical extension of the front wall of the house to form the addition.  All examples cited by the applicant to support the proposal, do not reflect this architectural form.  Either they keep a substantial portion of the existing front hipped roof form when the roof ridge is extended forward to the street and set the first floor wall back from the ground floor wall or they locate the addition behind the front hipped roof (the preferable solution).  It is considered that the proposed design is out of scale, unsympathetic and asymmetrical to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and will be incongruous and out of character to the Kitchener streetscape, forming a precedent for this inappropriate form of first floor addition when only one of a pair of semi-detached proposes the addition.

 

The location of the proposed first floor addition forward to the existing roof ridge introduces non compliances with the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives of the Development Control Plan, particularly in regard to floor space, height and setbacks.  Other areas of non compliance are landscaped area, car parking, and visual privacy.  When considered in totality, the non compliances reinforce each other to demonstrate that the proposal is clearly an overdevelopment of the site.

    

It is considered that the proposal has been poorly conceived in relation to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and its appearance to Kitchener Street.  As well, the configuration of the floor plan may be better executed to achieve a more satisfactory appearance and reduce the areas of non compliance, whilst still retaining a three bedroom house plus study.  This should be the subject of a new development application, with consultation with Council’s planning officers prior to its lodgement or as amended plans accompanying the Section 82A Review. 

 

The recommendation is confirmation of the determination for refusal.

 

2.    THE REVIEW

 

The applicant seeks a review of the determination to refuse consent to Development Application No. 02/00815/GA pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

The proposal, for which the review is sought, is for demolition of the existing outside toilet attached to the rear of the semi-detached dwelling and alterations and additions the existing semi-detached dwelling, including a new first floor addition comprising three (3) bedrooms, bathroom, W.C., corridor, internal stairs and lobby opening onto a balcony.  The ground floor is proposed to be reconfigured to convert the existing master bedroom to a study; to provide internal stairs to the first floor; relocation of the laundry opening onto a covered landing and the extension of the dwelling towards the rear (north) and also to the eastern boundary (Beatty Street).

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is one of a pair of Torrens Title semi-detached dwellings and is located on the north-west corner of Kitchener and Beatty Streets, Maroubra.  The site is an irregular shaped lot due to its corner position and an irregularity in the wall line between the other semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a total site area of 276.5m2.  Currently existing on the site forward of the building line to Kitchener Street is a carport with a hipped tiled roof, while existing forward of the building line to Kitchener Street of the adjacent semi-detached dwelling is a garage with a trafficable flat roof and balustrading.  The area is characterised by freestanding and semi-detached dwellings, both two storey and one storey. 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 02/00815//GA for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling, including a first floor addition was refused (report attached in full) on the 20th December, 2002 for the following reasons:-

 

“1.     The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.2 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the floor space ratio does not comply with either the objectives and performance requirements or the preferred solution of the DCP.  The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality. 

 

2.       The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP are not complied with. The first floor addition to the semi detached dwelling does not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi detached dwelling.  The addition is also excessive in height and scale, is not compatible with the existing character of the locality, will be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and will detract from the appearance of the existing building

 

3.       The proposed development will set a poor precedence for future residential development within the locality.

 

4.       The proposal is not in the public interest.” 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The application for the Section 82A Review was notified with no submissions received.  The original application was notified in accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, with one (1) submission received from P. Martin of 44 Kitchener Street, Maroubra.  Many of the issues raised in this submission remain relevant and discussed under “Environmental Assessment” later in the report.  The issues raised are listed below.

 

·  Size and bulk of the addition

·  Loss of sunlight

·  Loss of privacy and sunlight from the rear balcony

·  No heights provided

·  Questions if existing roof tiles are to be used

·  Water proofing to existing roof

·  TV antennae relocation

·  Loss of light to back room

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application for the Section 82A Review was not referred for comment.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the following relevant planning documents:-

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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.

 

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.

 

Yes

Kitchen and family room reconfigured to allow more useable space with northern orientation.

 

Yes

No living areas located within the first floor addition.  Existing lounge and proposed family room windows will achieve at least 3 hours of sunlight

 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

(Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes

Private open space achieves full sun

 

Yes

Additional shadows fall over roof area of adjoining properties to the west at 9.00am and on street surfaces at 12 noon and 3pm.

 

 

 

 

Yes

The proposal does not shadow principal outdoor areas of neighbours

 

 

 

 

 

 North facing windows of adjoining properties to the west are unaffected by proposal

 

 

 

Neighbour’s principal outdoor area unaffected by proposal

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Dwelling will be able to adopt gravity system to Council’s street gutter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

 

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  25m2   of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

No

31.2%

 

Yes

58.28m2 

 

Yes

Dimensions

7.285m x 8m

 

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

 

No

0.77:1 –see Environmental Assessment

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

No

8m maximum –see Environmental Assessment

 

No

The mass, proportion and articulation of the first floor addition detracts from the street – see Environmental Assessment

 

 

No

The length of the second storey addition is 17.385m with a zero setback from the western boundary, however the design does not significantly affect the light and privacy of adjoining neighbours- see Environmental Assessment

 

No

The second storey of this semi is built to the front elevation and fails to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

8m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

900mm for single storey portion at the rear

 

 

No

1-2.2m for side setback for the 2 storey portion of the building.

 

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

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

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes

Habitable room windows are not directly located within 9m

 

 

No

Rear balcony from Bedroom 3 will overlook private open space of adjoining property to the west – No screening provided

 

No

Rear balcony not provided with screening to street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front door visible from street, however design indicates laundry door as being the primary entry

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

 

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

1 space existing – no new spaces proposed.

The building is extended from a 2 bedroom dwelling to a 3 bedroom dwelling plus study

 

 

b.       Development Control Plan - Parking

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the reasons for refusal as listed in the determination of the application.  An amended design has been discussed on-site with the applicant.  It is considered that an amended design may achieve a more reasonable and acceptable impact to the Kitchener Street façade in terms of bulk, scale and aesthetics with a reduction in the amount and degree of non-compliances with Council’s controls as set out in the above table.  Such an amended design would require the lodgement of a new development application.

 

 

8.1   Landscaping

 

The application proposes to create a family room at the rear of the property by way of the re-configuration of the existing kitchen, the relocation of the existing laundry from the rear of the dwelling house, the demolition of outside W.C. and by extending the footprint of the dwelling to the rear (north) by approximately 1.5m and to the eastern side (Beatty Street) boundary by 1.26m.  As well, a landing with steps is proposed opening from the relocated laundry toward the middle of the ground floor in the area currently utilised as a second bedroom.  The resultant increase in the building footprint causes a net loss of landscaped area of approximately 33.1 m2 and reduces the landscaped area from the existing 43.2% to 31.2% of the site area.  It is considered that although this is not a sufficient reason on its own to refuse the application, given that the extension of the building footprint does not result in any significant loss of soft landscaping and private open space, the non compliance with the minimum landscaped requirement of the Preferred Solution (40%) should be considered in conjunction with the other areas of non compliance to determine if the proposed development in its totality is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

8.2   Floor Area

 

The proposed floor space ratio (0.77:1) exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio (0.65:1) for the site by approximately 32.1m2 under the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (Development Control Plan).

 

The Objective of the floor area control is “to ensure that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality”, while the Performance Requirements require that building bulk be “compatible with the surrounding built forms” and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open spaces.

 

The proposed second storey addition is located directly above the ground floor southern wall (Kitchener Street elevation) of the semi-detached dwelling and is setback from the ground floor rear (northern) extension by approximately 3.7m.  As such, the bulk and mass of the building is located forward of the common ridge of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and projects the first floor addition forward of the existing hipped front roof, only retained on the adjoining semi to the west (44 Kitchener Street). Therefore presenting an asymmetrical form to the semi-detached dwellings as a pair.

 

The stepped form of the internal dividing wall within the front bedroom of the subject semi-detached dwelling, located forward of the existing southern end of the roof ridge will, as a consequence of proposed first floor addition, be projected through the plane of the hipped front roof, which is currently read as the hipped roof of a single building.  This will compound the asymmetrical nature of the addition.  The front and western side wall of the proposed development will thus be a dominant and intrusive element into the streetscape of Kitchener Street, particularly when viewed from the western approach to the building.

 

The proposed addition will present a lopsided appearance of the building to the Kitchener Street, will not maintain a compatible scale with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and will be out of character to both the building and the existing streetscape character of Kitchener Street.  In this regard, both the original objection received from the adjoining semi-detached dwelling regarding the bulk and scale of the addition and the reason for refusal (Reason 1) in the original determination are supported.  It is considered that the floor space ratio of the proposed development fails to comply with the Objectives, Performance Requirements or the Preferred Solution of the Development Control Plan in regard to floor area, with the proposal being excessive in bulk and scale, as well as being incompatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

It should be noted, in line with discussions with the applicant in the course of this review, that if the first floor addition were to be located to the rear (north) of the existing southern (Kitchener Street end) of the roof ridge, thus maintaining the hipped roof form to the Kitchener Street front, this would present a more acceptable and reasonable approach for the design of the development.  In fact, the floor space lost (28.2 m2) from the first floor addition resulting from the reduction in bulk   approximately equates to the excess floor space (32.1m2) resulting from the development as currently proposed.

 

While it is understood, that the applicant wishes to gain a three bedroom dwelling for future family growth, as well as a study and an extended and useable family room, it is considered that the proposed floor layout is poorly conceived with the proposed stairs, corridor and lobby area having the potential to be re-configured to create a study, with the existing master bedroom downstairs and adjacent storage area over-utilised as a study and storage area when it could be more properly retained as a bedroom.  In effect, the proposed study because of its size and configuration should properly be considered a fourth bedroom. 

 

Additionally, the design of the first floor lobby (opening onto a balcony) and the laundry underneath (opening onto a landing), presents to the Beatty Street elevation, with its projecting roof and columns, as the main entrance to the building, rather than a laundry access.  In contrast, the main entrance to the building on the Beatty Street elevation has a ‘low key’ awning structure subservient to the pilastered structure to the laundry.  It is considered that this area of the building has been over-designed, with this building form failing to follow function, conflicting with the performance requirement of the Development Control Plan that “individual dwellings and entries are readily identifiable”.

 

8.3   Height, Form and Materials

 

The proposed first floor addition fails to comply with the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in regard to the external wall height (8m maximum instead of 7m), the length of the second storey portion (17.385m instead of 12m) and the requirement for the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling to be confined either within the existing roof space or setback from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form, with the design respecting the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

As discussed previously, the wall of the building is extended vertically at the front to form the first floor addition.  This results in both the non complying external wall height of 8m and the entire removal of the existing hipped roof of the subject semi-detached dwelling that forms the dominant element in this elevation.  This design fails to respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  As well, by extending the first floor roof ridge to the south, well beyond the current roof ridge, the length of the second storey portion is pushed beyond the allowable length by over 44%.    This is an insensitive design approach that fails to achieve the performance requirements of the height control.  Not only will it fail to integrate the second storey with the existing building and with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, it will appear incongruous to and detract from the Kitchener streetscape.

 

A schedule of external materials, finishes and colours was not submitted with the application nor do the plans note the material, finishes and colours of the external walls, however it appears that it is proposed to render the subject semi-detached dwelling.  This treatment would further exacerbate the incongruity between the subject semi-detached dwelling and the other semi-detached dwelling in the pair.  In consideration of the above, the proposal fails to meet the performance objectives in regard to its height and scale by its location on the existing semi-detached dwelling and its detailing.

 

The applicant argues that the design is acceptable by virtue of the different front (Kitchener Street) elevations to each of the semi-detached dwellings in the pair and by adopting a similar hipped roof form on the proposed second storey as currently existing on the building.  Examples (with photographs) of similar development in the locality have been put forward as setting a precedent for this form of development.

 

It is considered that the arguments put forward do not carry any merit for the following reasons:-

 

·    The pair of semi-detached dwellings have a common dominant element in their presentation to Kitchener Street, being the hipped roof form.  This will be destroyed by the proposed first floor addition.  The differences in their current appearance being an additional secondary hipped roof element and the garage and balustrade forward of the building line on the western semi-detached dwelling (44 Kitchener), while the subject semi-detached dwelling having a hipped roof with a gablet over a single carport that projects forward of the building line and a bay window.  Both the garage and the carport are incongruous to the streetscape, however the main hipped roof common to both semi-detached dwellings is still read visually as the dominant element in the streetscape.  The symmetry of this roof linking the semi-detached dwellings as an integrated whole will be lost if the proposed development were to proceed.

 

·    The incorporation of a hipped roof on the second storey addition will not successfully integrate the addition with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling as the dominant element will be the proposed two storey front wall to the street.  This ‘wraps’ around to the western elevation and would be highly visible when approached from the west along Kitchener Street.

·    The examples and photographs submitted by the applicant have been carefully examined.  Although they represent pairs of semi-detached dwellings which have a first floor addition on only one of the pair, in all cases where the addition has been brought forward of the roof ridge, an area of the existing hipped roof has been left remaining.  In the remainder of the examples cited, the addition is either located in line with the existing end of the roof ridge or set back beyond the roof ridge to the rear.  None of the examples have demonstrated a front wall of a semi vertically extended to form the first floor addition, as proposed in the subject application.   Therefore Council has been consistent in the approvals granted and if this application were to be approved it would form an undesirable precedent for this form of development.

 

8.4   Building Setbacks

 

At the southern (Kitchener Street) end of the eastern elevation, the proposed development consists of three levels for approximately the first 6.4m of its length toward the rear (north) of the dwelling.  As such a 3m setback from the eastern boundary is required by the Preferred Solutions instead of the 2.2m as proposed.   It is in this area of non compliance with the building setback that the proposed first floor addition extends past the existing roof ridge toward the street and which is the predominant issue of the application.  Further the proposal extends the semi-detached dwelling along the alignment of the common wall, that is a zero setback on the western boundary of the site.  In all cases, the performance requirement for building setbacks notes that setbacks should only be varied where the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining premises.   As demonstrated previously in the report, the proposal to extend the ridge forward of its present position and extending the existing front wall vertically to form the first floor addition will be incongruous to the form of the semi–detached dwellings and detract from the Kitchener streetscape.

 

As discussed previously, the design proposes a covered first floor balcony (from the first floor stair lobby) and a landing (from the ground floor laundry) framed by columns on the eastern façade of the building.  This portion of the building is two levels requiring a 1.5m setback, instead this projection from the building façade is setback only 1m approximately, thereby increasing its dominance to the eastern façade.

 

8.5   Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

A first floor balcony is proposed at the rear of the semi-detached dwelling which will overlook the private open space of the adjoining dwelling to the west.  This was a subject of concern to the neighbouring property owner in the original submission received for this application.  No screening, either to the adjoining property to the west or to Beatty Street to the east, has been included as part of this application.  At the very minimum, the balcony should have privacy screens, on both its eastern and western ends, to restrict the angle of outlook to a 45 degree angle in accordance with the Preferred Solutions of the Development Control Plan.  Additionally screen planting along the western boundary fence to a mature height of 3m would also restrict the opportunity for overlooking of private open space.

 

8.6   Car Parking

 

The proposed development converts an existing two bedroom house, requiring one (1) car parking space (already provided on site) to a three bedroom dwelling house plus study, requiring two (2) car parking spaces.  A more realistic representation of the proposal, however, would be as a four bedroom house, given the size (14.9 m2) of the study and its configuration (ability to have a door). Either way, the proposed development requires the provision of two car parking spaces on site under the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking.  The proposal before Council fails to provided the additional on-site car space and is therefore deficient also in this regard.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that Council may review the determination to refuse consent to Development Application No. 02/00815/GA under delegated authority on the 20 th December, 2002, pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and confirm the decision to refuse consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No. 02/00815/GA dated the 20th December, 2002 for refusal of consent be confirmed.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  A4 reduced plans

2.  Delegated Report dated 20 December 2002 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             DELEGATED REPORT

  Report of the Director of Planning –20 DECEMBER 2002

 

 

PROPERTY:                    46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra      

 

WARD:                              Central Ward

 

FILE REF:                       815/2002

 

APPLICANT:                   Modum P/L

 

OWNER:                          G and T Goodacre

 

PROPOSAL:                     Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling including a first floor addition.

 

VALUE OF WORK:        $160 000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:        Class 1a

 

DATE SUBMITTED:     28 August 2002

 

ADVERTISING:             Clause 23

 

AUTHOR:                        Marnie Stewart

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The site is located on the corner of Kitchener Street and Beatty Street.  Currently existing on the site is a semi-detached dwelling with carport forward of the building line.  The site is an irregular shape lot due to its corner position and has a total site area of 276.5m2.  The area is characterised by freestanding and semi-detached dwellings. 

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

94/00364/BY       SGL STY SEMI-DET BK/DW WITH T     App 26/09/94  26/09/9

 

00/00141/GB       Removal of tree and demolish                       App 19/05/00  16/02/0

 

00/00463/JB        Pave the front yard & create  App                09/06/00  30/05/0

 

01/00629/GB       Timber frame carport to front                        Rej       16/08/01  19/07/0

 

01/00533/JB        New timber and tile carport.                         App 29/11/01  26/07/0

 

 

3.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling.  On the ground floor, it is proposed to internally reconfigure the existing dwelling and extend the dwelling towards the rear and eastern boundary.  On the upper floor, it is proposed to construct an addition containing 3 bedrooms, lobby, bathroom and rear balcony. 

 

4.         ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

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

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls: -

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

5.   POLICY CONTROLS:

 

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.

 

Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The proposed development will not result in the loss of any significant landscaping to the site.   Details and calculations of soft landscaping have not been provided with the application.  Although it appears unlikely that the soft landscaping requirements of the DCP will be achieved

 

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 of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies.  The proposed FSR of the development is 0.77:1, which exceeds the preferred solutions of the DCP. 

 

In regard to the non-compliance, the applicant has provided additional details in support of their application including a written response and photographs.  The applicant believes that:

 

·    The proposed additions do not have any detrimental effect upon the amenity of the neighbours.

·    As depicted in the photographs, the proposal is compatible with existing developments in the immediate area and locality.

·    The floor area is not substantial, but creates a family home that meets modern standards.

·    Articulation has been provided in the form of a balcony and corbel bands. 

 

In considering the additional detail and photographs submitted, it is considered that the information does not adequately demonstrate that the bulk and scale of the upper floor addition is compatible with the existing character of the locality and that it is compatible with the surrounding built form.  It is considered that the design and location directly above the front external wall with no setback results in a visual obtrusive element in the streetscape and excessive bulk and scale when viewed from both the Kitchener and Beatty Street streetscapes.  

 

It should also be noted that of the 16 photographs submitted in support of the application, only 2 photos were taken in Kitchener Street. The remaining photographs were taken in different streets such as Holmes Street, Garret, Keating and Edgar Street, which are some distance from the subject site.  It is therefore difficult to argue that these additions depict the character of the surrounding built form. Regardless, the majority of these photos depict first floor additions that retain some of the existing roof form at the front of the dwelling and additions which are setback from the front of the dwelling.  None of the photos submitted by the applicant depict additions located directly above the existing front external wall presenting to the street a full two storey addition.  None of photos depicted dwellings that confer the same degree of bulk to the streetscape or are as visually dominant in the streetscape as the propose development

 

The bulk and scale of the upper floor addition is excessive and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality and the surrounding built form.  It is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the performance requirements or objectives of the DCP for floor space and cannot be supported. 

 

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.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed external wall of the addition at the front of the dwelling is proposed at around 7.7m, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  Also, the second storey portion has not been set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design does not respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi.  The first floor addition is proposed to be located above the front external wall of the existing dwelling and will not retain any of the existing roof.  The addition has no regard for the preferred solution,  whereby an upper level to a semi detached dwelling is sited behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form. It is noted that the pair of semis are not symmetrical, however it is considered that the first floor addition as proposed would have an adverse impact upon pair of semis as it does not integrate with the adjoining semi, it will detract from the existing local streetscape and will set a poor precedent for future residential development. 

 

The photographs submitted of the upper floor additions at 1 and 27 Kitchener Street reveal that the additions retain some of the existing roof form and have some setback from the front of the dwelling.  In particular, the addition at 27 Kitchener Street is setback behind a significant portion of the existing roof.  In regard to 1 Kitchener Street, it is acknowledged that it is not setback behind the ridge, however, perusal of Council’s records indicate that the addition was approved by Council in 1992 under a different planning document, which has been replaced by a policy that places a greater emphasis upon streetscape amenity. 

 

Furthermore, the site inspection revealed that there are no examples in Kitchener Street of additions that have been designed to go straight up from the front external wall like that proposed.  Also, as detailed in the section above, none of the photos submitted by the applicant depict additions located directly above the existing front external wall presenting to the street a full two-storey front facade.  All additions retain some form of roof to reduce the prominence of the upper floor additions in the streetscape. 

 

The proposed development is excessive in height and scale, the additions will detract from the character and appearance of the building, the additions do not enhance the existing built form and the additions do not integrate with the existing adjoining semi.  It should also be kept in perspective that the site is located in a very prominent position on the corner and any approval of such an addition would be very prominent in the area.  If the upper floor were setback from the front of the dwelling (Kitchener Street) it would reduce the prominence of the addition in both Beatty and Kitchener Street. 

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP and cannot be supported. 

 

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 side and rear setbacks are considered to be acceptable and satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements. 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

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

 

The application includes new openings to the ground and upper floors, new rear deck located off bedroom 3 and side deck located off the lobby on the upper floor.  To minimise overlooking impacts from the proposed rear deck, the deck has been designed to be located within the rear roof form.  

 

 Safety & Security

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance, dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions are that the front doors of dwellings are visible from the street, at least one habitable room window overlook the street, a Council approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence, and that any front fence comply with the other relevant requirements of the DCP. 

 

The proposed development is satisfactory in relation to safety and security.

 

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 should be noted that Council has passed a Draft Amendment to the DCP, which deleted performance requirement P2, which reads;

 

“ P2    -Not breach the predominant building alignment

-Not become an undesirable precedent”.

 

Also the following note has been included in the DCP:

 

“Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape”.

 

The absence of the prescriptive Performance Requirement will create a greater degree of flexibility from the Preferred Solutions and will place more reliance on merit assessment of streetscape impact, and generally allow for hardstand areas in the front of the building. This Draft Amendment is currently on exhibition and therefore Council may include the draft amendment in the assessment criteria of this application.

 

With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

 

Currently existing on the site is a carport forward of the building line.  There is no opportunity to provide any additional parking provision on site due to the constraints of the site. 

 

FENCES

 

Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

The plans do not depict any alterations and additions to the existing fencing on the site. 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

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

 

As a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve an energy efficiency, NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

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

 

It should be noted that the Draft Amendment to the DCP which is on exhibition from the 2nd May to the 31st May 2002, seeks to delete, amongst other items, the performance requirement that 3 hours of sunlight be available over at least part of the surface of the adjoining premises between 9.00am to 3.00pm and replace it with as follows;

 

The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.  Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings”

 

A NAThers Certificate is not required as the proposed is not for a new dwelling.  ‘

 

In regard to overshadowing, the proposed development will not result in excessive or unreasonable additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises private open space.  The proposed development is considered to satisfy the DCP requirements for overshadowing. 

 

6.         REFERRALS:

 

No referrals required.

 

7.         NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 9.9.2002 .  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received: -

 

P Martin – 44 Kitchener Street, Maroubra

 

·    Size and bulk of the addition

·    Loss of sunlight

·    Loss of privacy and sunlight from the rear balcony

·    No heights provided

·    Questions if existing roof tiles are to be used

·    Water proofing to existing roof

·    TN antennae relocation

·    Loss of light to back room

 

Comment

 

The objector has raised some valid concerns in regard to bulk, scale and height, which have been discussed in the body of this report.

 

In regard to overshadowing, it is considered that overshadowing impacts are not excessive and the development is satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements. In terms of privacy, any potential privacy impacts can be mitigated by conditions of consent. 

 

Water proofing concerns and issues are BCA matters.  The applicant has not indicates whether or not they will re use the existing roof tiles.

 

The location of the TV antennae is a private matter for the affected parties to resolve.

 

8.         SECTION 79C 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.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will adversely impact upon the character of the locality.  It is recommended that the application be refused. 

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria.  It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed in the recommendations.

 

11.       RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council's Team Leader under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 815/2002 for alterations and addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling including a first floor addition at 46 Kitchener Street, Maroubra for the following reasons: -

 

1          The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.2 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the floor space ratio does not comply with either the objectives and performance requirements or the preferred solution of the DCP.  The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale and is not compatible with the existing character of the locality. 

 

2          The proposed first floor addition does not satisfy Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP are not complied with. The first floor addition to the semi detached dwelling does not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi detached dwelling.  The addition is also excessive in height and scale, is not compatible with the existing character of the locality, will be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and will detract from the appearance of the existing building. 

 

4.            The proposed development will set a poor precedence for future residential development within the locality

 

3.         The proposal is not in the public interest. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE: .........................................                              

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be determined in accordance with the recommendation.

 

I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 6th March 2002, to determine this application.

 

 

 

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

 

TEAM LEADER

 

DATE:....................................

 

G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE\DEVE2002\kitchener46.doc

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 32/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

335 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1209/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 1209/2002 of 335 Maroubra Road, Maroubra  for Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use  to a mortgage broking company 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 15 May 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans.  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1209/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to a mortgage broking company.

PROPERTY:

335 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

WARD:

Central Ward

APPLICANT:

Craig Thorn

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Murray Matson, Ted Seng, Dominic Sullivan and Marjery Whitehead.

 

The applications proposes alterations and additions to the building, the provision of four (4) car parking spaces in a stacked arrangement and the change of use of the existing shop and residence to offices for a mortgage broking company. 

 

Although the scale of the proposed business use is prohibited in Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone), the application establishes that existing use rights for a business use pertain to the site.  Accordingly development consent may be granted subject to a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

Conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation to address issues raised by surrounding residential properties and it is considered that the development is compatible with the surrounding residential area.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes alterations and additions to the existing building, including exterior painting of the building, on-site stacked parking for four (4) vehicles, landscaping works and the change of use of the premises entirely for business purposes.

 

Alterations and additions are proposed to include the following:-

·    Internal re-configuration of the existing shop and residence for the conversion to office spaces, reception area, boardroom and ancillary facilities.

·    A rear addition at first floor level for the purpose of a boardroom.

·    A new external awning on Maroubra Road.

·    A new glazed shop front and entry doors to Maroubra Road.

 

The proposal removes the residential use from the site and instead the premises is proposed to be used for offices for Auspak Financial Services, a mortgage broking operation, employing three staff that will operate from the premises, being two directors and a receptionist.   The business operates a franchise operation and it is understood from the applicant, that two offices will be available for the use of two lending agents as well as the three full time staff members.  Accordingly, the number of staff operating from the premises will be limited to five (5), including lending agents at one time.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed boardroom will be used for meetings as follows:-

·    A weekly agency meeting for 10 people, on Fridays between 11.00am and 12.00 noon.

·    A six weekly Directors’ Board Meeting for 4 people, on Thursdays between 3.00pm and 4.00pm

 

Hours of operation are proposed as 8.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday and by appointment only on Saturdays between 9.00am and 12.00 noon.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Maroubra Road, between Flower Street and Haig Street.  The site fronts onto Maroubra Road with rear access from Haig Street.  The eastern end of Haig Street has been closed to form a cul-de-sac.  Vehicular access to the site from Haig Street is blocked by plantings on the Council verge.

 

Existing on the site is a two storey attached building, being the eastern end terrace in a row (327 to 335 Maroubra Road), all having a similar configuration of a ground floor shopfront and residence above.  The shopfront of the subject building has recently been occupied by Peter’s Carpet Cleaning Pty Ltd, with a residence behind on this level and above on the first floor.  The other properties in the terrace row have shopfront business uses as follows:-

 

·    327 Maroubra Road – The Balloon Saloon

·    329 Maroubra Road – Maroubra Locksmiths

·    331 Maroubra Road – AC Signs

·    333A – Peters Carpet Cleaning

 

Located on the site immediately adjacent to the east is a single storey dwelling house (337 Maroubra Road) that also backs onto Haig Street, with a Child Car Centre located on the property one further removed to the east and occupying a former Service Station building.  Located immediately adjacent to the west on Maroubra Road are three shops with residences above (numbered 331, 333 and 333A Maroubra Road) all on one title, while immediately adjacent to the west on Haig Street is a residential dwelling house (88 Haig Street). Opposite on Maroubra Road is a nursing home, dwelling houses and further to the west, shops.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.   APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 20th December, 2003.  In response to issues raised by Council officers and objectors, following notification, additional information and revised plans were received on the 15th April, 2003. The revised plans show the retention of the existing Olive Trees, hard surface car stands replaced with permeable gravel surfaces and a privacy screens on the eastern and western elevations.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The subject application relies on existing use rights, for the lawful commencement of the business use on the site prior to its current Residential 2A zoning under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988.  Council’s records provide evidence of a business use lawfully commenced on the site as follows:-

 

·    An application (68/01314/BZ) for alterations to the shop front was approved on the 1st of January 1968.

 

·    Development Application No. 68/00256/DZ for the use vacant shop as fish & chip shop was approved on the 16th of July 1968. 

 

·    An application (75/00160/BZ) for alterations was refused on the 1st January, 1975.

 

·    An application (77/00218/BZ) for alterations was approved on the 1st January, 1977.

 

·    Development Application No. 77/00054/DZ to extend the existing shop and for the use as a dry cleaning agency was refused on the 27th May, 1977.

 

·    Development Application No. 77/00156/DZ for alterations and additions to the existing shop and residence was approved on the16th September, 1977 under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance.

 

·    Development Application No. 78/00023/DZ to use the shop premises for the sale of floor coverings and the conversion of one room of the existing residence for storage was approved on the 24th April, 1978 under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance as a permissible use.

 

·    Development Application No. 83/00089/DZ for the use of the existing vacant shop for rental of video movies and sale of accessories was approved on the 6th May, 1983 under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance 1978

 

Evidence of the continuity of use of a business on the site to the current time is provided as set out in the table below.  It should be noted, that although there is no record of the use of the shop by Peter’s Carpet Cleaning as an approved use, this does not represent an abrogation of the existing use rights pertaining to the site.

 

Dates

From

Use

“Past twenty years”

1983-2003

Statutory declaration from Marinos Euripidov in his capacity as Property Manager for Raine and Horne, Maroubra and N G Farah Reals Estate World

“during this time the shop has been used for commercial purposes”

Lease taken out on 18/7/89 and maintained tenancy up until served notice to vacate on 16/4/03

·        Statutory declaration from Peter Gerloff of Peters Carpet Cleaning Pty Ltd

·        Copy of leas to Peters Carpet Cleaning P/L from 6/8/1995 to 5/8/1998

·        Copy of lease to Peters Carpet Cleaning P/L from 5/7/89 to 5/7/91.

Leased shop for Peter’s Carpet Cleaning from 18/7/1989

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 13th January, 2003 in accordance with Clause 23 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. 

 

5.1       Objections

 

As a result of the notification process, submissions were received from the following:- A Lancaster of 86 Haig Street, Maroubra; D McCamley of 337 Maroubra Road, Maroubra; K and E Harris of 88 Haig Street, Maroubra; G Renshaw of 107 Haig Street, Maroubra.  The submissions raise the following issues:-

 

·    The proposal for the commercial use of the entire property is prohibited in the 2A Residential Zone.  If approval is given then it will set a precedent for the other adjacent shops to do likewise, and Haig Street residents will lose their privacy.  It also sets a precedent throughout the Randwick Council Area.

·    The proposal is a de-facto rezoning of the area as commercial.

·    Only the first two rooms off Maroubra Road have been used as commercial by “Peter’s Carpet Cleaning” the remaining ground floor rooms and the first floor have always been used for residential use not commercial. The building was not designed for business purposes but was originally an old home.

·    The proposed development will not be a ‘low-key’ use and will not maintain the character of the established residential area, especially for the residents of Haig Street.

·    The proposal fails to comply with Clause 35 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988 (“business premises in residential zones”), by exceeding 50m2 and will form another precedent if approval is granted.  The proposed development is not for a ‘small business’.

·    The child care centre was a former service station and before that a large house with a tennis court.  The child care centre’s main operations are carried out on Maroubra Road not Haig Street, hence Haig Street is purely residential and not commercial.

·    Loss of residential property values as a result of the proposed development.

·    The proposal does not comply with the aims and objectives of the RLEP 1998.

·    The proposal breaches Council’s floor space ratio controls.

·    The proposal fails to comply with Clause 31 (Landscaped Area).  This requires that development, other than a dwelling house, within Zone 2A as contained in the RLEP 1998 must provide 40% landscaped area. Proposed car parking spaces take up a large proportion of the rear yard, with only approximately 10% remaining for potential landscaping.

·    The rear yard contains mature Olive Trees over 6m in height which are proposed for removal to create car parking and are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  These trees should not be removed as they provide soil stability, privacy, shade screening and habitat for birds.  They also contribute greatly to the amenity and health of the urban environment and their removal would detract from the streetscape.

·    The conversion of the terrace to a boardroom does not comply with the height requirements of Cause 33 (Building Heights) of the RLEP 1998. Additionally, it not only increases floor space, it will result in a loss of privacy and overshadowing to the rear yard of 88 Haig Street.

·    The number of staff using the premises will be 15 not 6 as stated.  It is hard to believe that 245m2 of commercial space is needed for only 6 employees.  This can be checked on Auspak Financial Services website.  Thus there is a significant shortfall in the on-site parking proposed (4 spaces) when a minimum of 6 spaces is required.  This coupled with client parking needs will result in considerable traffic in the Haig Street cul-de-sac, causing noise and creating an unsafe pedestrian environment.

·    The immediate locality of Maroubra Road, Flower Street and Haig Street does not have spare on-street car parking capacity to pick up the shortfall in parking required for the commercial development of the subject property.

·    Both Haig Street and Maroubra Road are totally utilised by resident parking and the increased traffic generated by the proposed development will be dangerous with children being collected and picked up at Bub’s Kindergarten nearby at 339 Maroubra Road.

·    Stacked parking will make manoeuvring into and out of parking spaces difficult and is not feasible given that employees would be going to various appointments during the day.

·    Security of the surrounding residents will be undermined, with strangers around day and night.

·    Noise from air conditioning plant will result in noise and will have major adverse impacts to surrounding residents.

·    The proposed first floor extension (at 1.8m high) at the rear will completely block sunlight to the kitchen and laundry windows to the dwelling house at 337 Maroubra Road and also the yard and patio.

·    The proposal will interfere with the owner’s quiet enjoyment of their property at 337 Maroubra Road.

 

Discussion of the above-mentioned issues is contained within Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments have been provided:-

 

6.1       Landscape Comments

 

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

 

1.   Four (4) specimens of Olea europaea (Common Olive) located within the rear yard of the site. These trees are approximately 5-6 metres tall and in good health. The construction of the proposed car park may have an adverse effect on the health of these trees. Given that the trees are not significant specimens within the City of Randwick, it is recommended that the applicant be advise to remove these trees and provide four (4) suitable replacement trees within the rear yard of the site.

 

2.     Two (2) Olea africaca (African Olive) located within the rear yard of the site. These trees are approximately 5-6 metres tall and in average health. These trees are listed as an environmental weed within the city of Randwick. As such, permission is granted for the removal of these trees.

 

6.2       Traffic/Parking Comments

 

6.2.1    Parking requirements

 

The traffic report indicates that the proposed development will have a GFA of 248m2, however, it is understood from the EPCD Department that this figure excludes the converted garage and that the proposed GFA is actually 279.4 m2. Based on GFA of 279.4 m2, the proposed development requires a total of 7 parking spaces, however only 2 x two stacked spaces are provided (leaving a deficit of 3 spaces).

 

It is noted that the use of stacked parking spaces is not in accordance with Council’s DCP for parking and generally the AIS Department would not support the use of stacked parking, however, given the narrow width of the site, it is considered that stacked parking may need to be considered.

 

According to the statement of environmental effects, the existing development contains 68.5m2 of business area and 4 residential bedrooms, requiring a total of 4 parking spaces. However, it is understood from the EPCD Department that the existing development only contains a total of 50.4 m2 of business area and 4 residential bedrooms, requiring only 3 parking spaces. It is understood that one parking space has been provided for the existing development and thus there is an existing deficit of at least 2 spaces on the site. The EPCD Department to determine whether the proposed parking deficit of 3 spaces is acceptable.

 

6.2.2    Parking Study

 

The applicant has submitted an additional parking study dated 1 April 2003 (by Gennaoui Consulting Pty Ltd) that considers the availability of street parking during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The study also looks at the availability of parking during the proposed weekly onsite sales meeting where up to 10 employees may be present.

 

The study suggests that sufficient on-street parking is available throughout the day to meet the excess parking demands from the proposed development. However, it is noted that the AIS Department does not support new developments relying on on-street parking to meet their parking demands

 

The EPCD Department to determine whether the off-street parking provisions for the development are satisfactory.

 

6.2.3    Traffic generation

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed commercial development comprising 248m2 (GFA) will be some 25 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 5 vehicles per hour is considered low and the impacts on the surrounding streets as a result of the development should be minimal.

 

6.3       Civil works Comments

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to reconstruct/extend the existing layback and construct a new concrete vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the site. It is noted that this will involve removing the illegal garden area located on the verge.

 

The AIS Department does not object to the proposed double width crossing being installed opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Haig Street.

 

6.4       Waste Comments

 

The submitted plans show a garbage bin storage area sized to contain a total of 3 x 240 litre mobile garbage bins.  This is considered adequate for the anticipated waste generation rates for office building is approximately 0.03m3/100m2 gross floor area/day of garbage and 0.01m3/100m2 gross floor area/day of recyclable material (Resource NSW waste generation table). For the proposed development, this equates to approximately 375 litres of waste per week and 125 litres of recyclable material per week (assuming 5 working days per week).

 

Garbage bins can be presented on either side of the proposed driveway for collection in Haig Street.

 

6.5       Building Services Comments

 

Standard conditions of consent have been provided addressing the key building issues of Site management, fire safety, access for people with disabilities for a building classified as Class 5 - Offices.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has an area of 270.3m2 and as such is well under below the threshold (4,000m2) requiring a master plan.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and as such the proposal for a business premise is a prohibited use in the Zone No. 2A.  The applicant states, in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects, that the existing use is a non-conforming use and is subject to existing use rights. 

 

The shop front use of the subject premises was lawfully commenced under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance as detailed above in the ‘History of Site Usage’.  It is considered that satisfactory evidence in support of the continuance of the use has been demonstrated.  Accordingly, it is considered that existing use rights pertain to the site under Part 4, Division 10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:-

 

·  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

·  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

·  Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000; and

·  Building Code of Australia.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Type of Land Use

Parking Requirements

Compliance

Business Premises

Required = 6 car spaces (1 space per 40m2)

 

No – 4 car spaces supplied as two sets of 2 stacked car spaces

 

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       Business premises in residential zones

 

A primary concern in the objections received is that the proposed business use of the entire premises is a prohibited use in Zone No. 2A (except where the requirements of Clause 35 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 has been satisfied).  Clause 35 only applies to the business use of a building in the residential zones (Zone Nos. 2A, 2B or 2C) where the building was “originally designed or constructed (or both) for use as a business premises” and the total floor space proposed to be used for the business premises does not exceed 50m2.  The proposed floor space of 246m2 is well in excess that permissible under Clause 35.  The concern of the objectors is that approval of the application will set a precedent, not only for the adjacent shops to do likewise, but also for similar developments to occur throughout the Council area.

 

The purpose of Clause 35 is “to provide for the establishment and continued operation of small scale business development in residential zones”.  It is considered, however, that the scale of the operation proposed, that is the extension of the two-room shop front business use to the use of the entire building, is too great, for Clause 35 to be applicable to the proposal.  Instead, the application relies on the “existing use rights provisions of the relevant legislation for approval.  Therefore approval of the subject proposal would not form a precedent for any other site in a residential zone, including neighbouring properties, to convert a building in its entirety to a business use, as firstly, existing use rights must be established on a case by case basis, secondly the continuity of the use needs to be demonstrated and thirdly, a merit based assessment is required before any approval can be considered.

 

9.2       Existing use rights

 

Existing use rights for a business use pertain to the subject site, as previously discussed, with a business use on the premises lawfully established and its continuity reasonably established.  Accordingly, under Section 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the non-conforming use may be enlarged, expanded, intensified or altered and extended subject to development consent.  Also, under Section 43 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000, any alteration or extension of a building or a work used for an existing use can be undertaken subject to development consent.  Hence, notwithstanding that the proposed use of the entire premises for a business use is prohibited within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone), it may be approved by development consent under the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. 2000.

 

As the business use of the entire premises is a prohibited use in the zone, other provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1988, such as aims and objectives and development standards regarding floor space ratios, building heights, and landscaped area are not applicable and do not require objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.  Nevertheless, such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal. 

 

9.3       Zone Objectives

 

The relevant objectives of Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) applicable to the proposal are:

 

·    to maintain the character of established residential areas;

·    to enable redevelopment ….where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development; and

 

·    to allow people to carry out a range of activities… where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

It is considered that the proposal maintains the character of the area, notwithstanding the proposed business use, as rear access to the premises from Haig Street will only be limited to full time staff members, with visitors, clients and franchise agents entering the premises from Maroubra Road.  The proposed rear first floor addition is designed to integrate with the existing building design and the appearance upgraded with new paintwork in neutral tones and a new awning. It is therefore considered that the proposed works will not be intrusive to either the Haig Street or Maroubra Road streetscape.

 

The zone objectives are considered below, in relation to the objections received from adjoining and nearby residents with respect to amenity and environmental impacts of the proposal.  These include traffic generation and loss of on-street car parking; security; retention of mature vegetation; noise; overshadowing; overlooking and loss in property values. 

 

9.4       Overshadowing

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed rear first floor addition will not result in any significant additional shadow impact to either the living areas or ground level private open space of the adjoining properties to the east (337 Maroubra Road) or west (88 Haig Street) on the 21st June.

 

At 9.00am on the 21st June, existing shadow cast on the adjoining property to the west in Haig Street (88 Haig Street) predominantly obscures two of the three ground floor windows on the rear (north) elevation of this dwelling, with the proposed development still retaining solar access to the unaffected third window.  The first floor living room and bedroom window on the rear (north) elevation of 88 Haig Street are unaffected by the proposed shadow.

 

At midday on the 21st June, shadow is predominantly cast on the rear yard of the subject property, while the additional shadow from the proposed development cast on the rear yard of 337 Haig Street is relatively minor, falling adjacent to its western fence and leaving the rear yard predominantly free from the shadow of the subject building.

 

At 3.00pm on the 21st June, windows on the western elevation of 337 Haig Street are predominantly in existing shadow from the subject building, with the additional shadow from the proposed development falling only on a corner of the laundry window only.  The additional shadow cast by the proposed development onto the rear yard of 337 Haig Street is not considered substantial, falling adjacent to its eastern fence.

 

 

9.5       Loss of vegetation

 

The existing garage located beneath the habitable floor areas of the building is not utilised by the present occupants, with access blocked by extensive plantings both in the rear yard of the subject site and on the Council verge on the Haig Street frontage. The plantings, both in the rear yard and on the verge, appear to have been undertaken by the residential occupants of the building for the production of food, with the rear yard having four (4) common (or eating) Olive Trees and two fruit trees, while the garden on the Council verge is in the form of a vegetable garden.

 

The proposal provides four (4) car parking spaces in the rear yard in the form of two sets of two (2) stacked parking spaces.  The stacked parking arrangement removes approximately 64m2 of existing landscaped area from the site, with the total landscaped area proposed being approximately 19.7%. 

 

The statutory purpose of the landscape control in residential zones is to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for residential purposes.  It should be noted, however, that commercial buildings in the Business Zones are not subject to landscape requirements.  The proposed business use of the premises differs from a residential use in that recreational open space for residents is not required, while the proposed permeable (gravel) car parking area assists in the control of urban run-off.  Hence it is more important to look at the amenity impacts resulting from the loss of landscaping,

 

An objection has been raised regarding any removal of the mature Olive Trees on the grounds that they provide soil stability, privacy, shade screening, habitat for birds and contribute greatly to the amenity and health of the urban environment, as well as the streetscape.

 

There are six (6) Olive Trees located in the rear yard providing canopy and landscape amenity to the adjoining properties, both east and west.  Of these, four (4) Olive Trees bear eating olives and are known as the European or Common Olive (Olea europaea) species, while two (2) Olive Trees are Wild Olive (Olea aficana) species, considered an environmental weed and should be removed.

 

Three (3) European Olive Trees are located along the western boundary.  The European Olive Tree on the western boundary closest to the existing building is in poor condition and is not worthy of retention.  On the eastern boundary, there are located one European Olive Tree and two fruit trees.  The fruit trees are not covered by Council’s Tree Protection Order and may be removed by the applicant.

 

The original application has been amended in response to the objectors’ concerns to show the retention of the Olive Trees, with a permeable gravel car stand area substituted for concrete.  Notwithstanding these changes, Council’s Landscape Officers have advised that the construction of the car stand will adversely effect the three European Olive Trees in good condition, due to their close proximity to the car stand area, with the retention of these Olive Trees not recommended.

 

It should be noted that if the existing garage under the building was utilised in conjunction with the present uses on the site, then it is unlikely that all the existing vegetation could still be retained.  If the existing garage were to be utilised in conjunction with the proposed business use, then three (3) cars could be stacked along a driveway leading to the garage, however this would lead to an undesirable situation in that three cars would need to be moved, should the car in the garage wish to exit the site.  In the proposed situation, only one car has to be moved, if the northern-most car in the stacked arrangement needs to exit the site.  This amount of vehicle manoeuvre is considered reasonable and does not significantly differ from a residential use with cars parked on a driveway in front of a garage.

 

Instead, it is considered that four (4) suitable replacement trees should be provided in the remaining portion of the rear yard.  In order to do so, the sizeable area of concrete in the rear yard, adjacent to the rear of the building, will be required to be removed, as the narrow width of the site precludes any tree planting to the western and eastern sides of the car spaces, apart from Pencil Pines.  Pencil Pines would provide screening, but not any significant canopy and may block eastern solar access and outlook to the first floor living area of 88 Haig Street.  It is therefore considered that the planting of Pencil Pines should not be required as a condition of consent.

 

Therefore, the provision of on-site car parking as a trade-off for the retention of the three (3) Olive Trees is supported as long as advanced tree species are introduced into the area currently existing as concrete adjacent to the rear of the building.  These will, in time, provide screening to the building from the street and introduce landscape amenity back to the site.   Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation.

 

9.6       Privacy

 

Concerns have been expressed regarding the loss of both visual and acoustic privacy from the proposed development.  It is therefore relevant to examine both the intensity and type of the use, hours of operation and activities proposed in the additional floor space and associated terrace.

 

The proposed business use is for the purposes of offices for a mortgage broking company, with standard business operating hours (being 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, with Saturday by appointment only between 9.00am and 12.00 noon).  The proposed business hours are not considered unreasonable and are consistent with business usage of adjacent shops. The majority of the time only three to five people will be operating from the premises, this is not considered an intensive use of the space and would be similar to a real estate agency, without necessarily catering to passer-by trade.

 

Noise associated with such use would be minimal and should not generate any additional noise than the existing uses of the premises.  Any noise associated with the business use (including car movements) would cease after 5.30pm during weekdays and noon on Saturday.  Therefore no night time intrusion would occur to surrounding residential properties, such as would be occasioned by a café or restaurant.  Air conditioning is not proposed as part of this application and would be the subject of a separate application to Council.

 

On a weekly basis, a meeting is proposed to be held in the boardroom for the lending agents who operate the franchises of the business. This is to be held in the boardroom every Friday, between11.00am and 12 noon, with 10 people attending.  Additionally a Directors’ Board Meeting with four (4) people attending is proposed on a Thursday between 3pm to 4pm on a six-weekly basis. These meetings are within office hours and are not proposed to be meetings with members of the public or clients in attendance, such as would be the case with auction rooms and it is not anticipated that the use of the proposed boardroom would generate any substantial noise. 

 

The proposed boardroom addition occupies approximately two thirds of the area of the existing roof terrace, which overlooks the surrounding properties.  No windows are proposed on the eastern and western elevations of the addition.  Therefore the area of useable terrace space is considerably reduced, hence reducing both the amount and degree of overlooking to the private open spaces.  The proposed smaller terrace area forms a ‘break-out’ space to the boardroom and has had privacy screens introduced to both the eastern and western elevations in the amended plans received. 

 

The privacy screens are proposed as translucent PVC sheeting in a galvanised steel frame.  It is considered that the style and choice of materials proposed will be deleterious to the building’s appearance and instead should be fixed louvres angled to prevent looking down into the private open space/windows of adjacent properties to the east and west, with material choice being either painted timber or powder-coated metal.  Additionally the screens should wrap around to the rear (southern elevation) of the terrace by 1.2m from both the eastern and western sides to further restrict the angle of viewing to the private open space/windows of the adjacent properties, especially given the loss of mature vegetation occasioned by the proposal.  Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation.

 

Ashtrays on the first floor terrace are shown on the amended plans, the accompanying statement states that “the Directors of Auspak Financial Services have declared that all indoor areas and outdoor terraces are designated as smoke free areas” and that that smokers will be required to smoke in the carpark.  In order to reflect the statement made, it is considered that the ashtrays shown on the terrace area should be deleted from the plans. 

 

9.7       Traffic and parking

 

Under the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking, there is an existing on-site parking deficiency of 2.5 spaces from the approved use of the site as a shopfront business and residence, as the existing garage under the building is inaccessible from Haig Street.  The proposed business use of the entire premises requires, under the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking, the provision of seven (7) car spaces, with four (4) car parking spaces provided in the form of two sets of two stacked car parking spaces.  Thus the proposed business use results in a deficiency of three (3) on-site car spaces.  Therefore the proposed business use of the entire premises approximates the existing situation in terms of car parking. 

 

A report and a supplementary report prepared by Gennaoui Consulting Pty Ltd, Traffic and Transport Engineers and Planners have been submitted as part of the application.  The reports have undertaken parking surveys in consideration of the adequacy of on-street parking in the area for any shortfall that may occur during the periods of additional car parking demand generated by the weekly agency meeting and the six-weekly Directors’ board meeting.  While Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Division does not support new developments relying on on-street parking to meet their parking demands, the parking study suggests that there is sufficient on-street parking available throughout the day to meet the excess parking demands.  In order to alleviate concerns from residents in Haig Street, that staff and visitor parking will take place in Haig Street, has proposed that franchise agents and visitors will be required to access the site from Maroubra Road, with the rear door locked and entry will be by key, only by the three permanent Auspak staff. An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation to reflect this arrangement.  Accordingly, it is considered that refusal on the grounds of the shortfall in on-site parking cannot be sustained.

 

9.8       Security

 

It is noted that the application proposes that the rear of the premises is left open for access to the car parking stands, with no gates provided.  It is considered that to ensure the security of the site at night, that some form of lockable security gates be provided.  These should not impede pedestrian access along the Council verge and therefore should open into the site.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation.

 

9.9       Floor Space Ratio

 

The existing floor space ratio on the subject site is 0.91:1, with the proposed boardroom addition in the area of existing rear first floor deck comprising an additional 33.37m2.  Thus the proposed floor space ratio for the site is 1.03:1.  It should be noted that the applicable floor space ratio for buildings (other than a dwelling house) in the 2A Zone is 0.5:1.  Nevertheless, the additional building bulk occasioned by the first floor rear addition is not considered to result in significant detrimental impacts to adjoining neighbours, as the addition closes off a significant proportion of the first floor terrace area, which would otherwise present opportunities for overlooking of private open space of adjoining properties. 

 

The addition is considered compatible with the character of the existing building on the site and the adjoining buildings forming the ‘terrace’ to the west.  From Haig Street and Maroubra Road, it is considered that the increased building bulk will not be overly conspicuous as its form complements the architectural style of the subject building.  Shadow impacts of the increased bulk are minimal and could not sustain refusal of the application.

 

9.10     Building height

 

The proposed rear addition has a variable height between 6.6m and 8.55m along its eastern elevation, while the height varies between 6.6m and 8.69m along the western elevation, this is well below the maximum building height of 9.5m permissible for an attached dual occupancy development in the 2A Zone.  Given the proposal does not create substantial shadow impacts to adjoining properties, the height of the proposed addition is not considered a significant consideration warranting refusal of the application.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal establishes existing use rights and as such the statutory controls, otherwise applicable, do not apply.  It is considered that the impacts associated with parking, loss of landscaping, security and privacy may be addressed by appropriate conditions of consent contained within the Recommendation and accordingly the application may be approved.

 

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 1209/02/GG for alterations and additions and change of use to a mortgage broking company at 335 Maroubra Road, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans with Project No. 2002 – 24 and numbered ID. G.100.ID DA-S1 and ID. DA.500 DA-S2, both amendment C, dated April 2003 and received by Council on the 15th April, 2003 and ID. DA. 501, amendment A, dated May 2003 and received by Council on the 16th May, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         The hours of operation of the premises are restricted to 8.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday and by appointment only on Saturdays between 9.00am and 12.00 noon.

 

3.         The area of concrete adjacent to the rear of the building shall be removed prior to occupation of the building prior to occupation of the building and this area shall be utilised for soft landscaping.

 

4.         The number of staff operating from the premises will be limited to five (5) people, including lending agents, at any one time.

 

5.         The rear entry door to the building shall remain locked at all times, with key access only provided to permanent employees of the business operating from the premises in order to maintain security and minimize visitor parking in Haig Street.

 

6.         Lockable gates, opening into the site, along the rear boundary shall be provided to secure the site at night.  Details demonstrating compliance with the above requirements shall be submitted prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

7.         The privacy screening on the eastern and western elevations of the first floor rear terrace shall be to a height of 1.5m, with louvred shutters fixed at an angle to restrict the angle of viewing to the private open space/windows of the adjacent properties and shall be constructed either from painted timber or powder-coated metal. The privacy screens shall continue around to the rear (southern elevation) of the terrace for a length of 1.2m from both its eastern and western sides to further reduce overlooking of private open space.  Details demonstrating compliance with the above requirements shall be submitted prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

8.         Colours of the external surfaces to the building shall be in accordance with the submitted schedule of external colours received by Council on the 15th April, 2003, in order to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

9.         The roof of the first floor addition shall be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment

 

10.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

13.       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.

 

14.       All new plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rain water heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

16.       The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

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

 

19.       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.

 

20.       Buildings in which there is a change of building use must comply with the category 1 fire safety provisions applicable to the proposed new use, in accordance with clause 93 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, unless an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188 of the Regulation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

24.       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.

 

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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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).

 

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

 

a)     car parking and vehicular access

b)     landscaping

c)     stormwater drainage

d)     external finishes and materials

 

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

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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)   On completion of the erection of the building verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

40.       Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

41.       A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.  Any damage caused to the road or footway must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

43.       The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

           

44.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following 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:

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

49.       The finished ground level for any new work outside of the building is required to be a minimum of:

 

·    150mm below the internal floor level of the building, or,

·    100mm below the internal floor level of the building in sandy, well drained areas, or,

·    50mm below the internal floor level of the building where an external paved area or slab is provided adjacent to the building, which is graded not less than 50mm over the first 1m away from the building,

 

Details of stormwater drainage are to be provided in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

50.       Any new 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 group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

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

 

a)   all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

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

 

52.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)   Reconstruct/extend the existing layback and construct a new concrete vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the site. It is noted that this will involve removal the illegal garden area located on the verge.

 

55.       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.

 

56.       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:

 

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

 

·    20 mm above the back of the existing footpath at all points opposite the footpath, along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

59.       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.

 

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

 

60.       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.

 

61.       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 waste management:

 

62.       The garbage storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 3 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 1 recycle bin) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

63.       The landscaped areas shown on the plan number ID.DA.500 DA-S2, amendment C, dated April 2003 and as amended by Condition Nos. 3 and 66 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

66.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 4 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement tree (not palm) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)     Four (4) specimens of Olea europaea (Common Olive) located within the rear yard on both the eastern and western sides

b)     Two (2) specimens of Olea Africana (African Olive) located within the rear yard.

 

67.       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.

 

68.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, for the amount of $3,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

69.       All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·    Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

·    Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

·    Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

70.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.  In this regard all contractors and employees shall adopt work practices in accordance with the requirements of WorkSafe’s Control of Inorganic Lead at Work (NOHSC:102(1994) and NOHSC:2015(1994).

 

71.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

Advisory Matters

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

 

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

 

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

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 33/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

89-91 Boyce Road, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/285/1996 'E'

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 285/1996 of 89 – 91 Boyce Road, Maroubra for Section 96 – Modification to increase the parapet height of the building by 1.4 metres, to remove the rooftop spire, alter external finishes, relocated detention tank and make changes to basement levels 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 6 May 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans.   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

6 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/285/96 'E’

 

PROPOSAL:

Section 96 – Modification to increase the parapet height of the building by 1.4 metres, to remove the rooftop spire, alter external finishes, relocate detention tank and make changes to basement levels.

PROPERTY:

 89-91 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

PTI ARCHITECTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application was notified to adjoining property owners and advertised in the local paper. No submissions were received in response to this notification. The main issues for consideration in the proposal are the proposed increase in the height of the building and the removal of the roof spire element.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes amendments to the existing consent for a nine (9) storey building comprised of 42 units. The major change proposed is an increase in floor to floor heights between Levels 1 and 7 by 200mm from 2.65 metres to 2.85 metres, resulting in an increase in the height of the overall building form (excluding the spire) of 1.4 metres. The applicant has requested removal of the roof spire, which will reduce the maximum height of the building from RL56.57 to RL52.02 (a reduction of 4.55 metres). Changes to the configuration and floor levels of basement areas are also proposed.

 

Details of proposed amendments to the approved development plans are as follows:

 

-    Changes to Basement Level 2

·    Reduction in general floor level of 180mm, with isolated areas being lowered up to 400mm

·    Reconfiguration of Stair 3 to increase setback from western side boundary shoring to ensure structural integrity of existing piling

·    Change in ramp levels and layout of parking

 

-    Changes to Basement Level 1

·    Move detention tank to previous plant room location to allow for an additional two car parking spaces

·    Redesign of plant room to incorporate detention tank

·    Reconfiguration of stairs from basement 2 (stair 3) to increase setback from side boundary shoring to ensure structural integrity

·    Reduction in general floor level of 80mm

·    Changes in ramp levels

 

-    Changes to Ground Floor Level

·    Increase in entry/exit to basement carpark by 1 metre to be 8 metres wide and incorporation of column and kerb to centre of driveway.

·    Indication of bicycle parking and garbage storage to comply with previous conditions of consent

·    Reconfiguration of stairs from basement 2 (stair 3) to increase setback from side boundary shoring to reflect changes made on basement levels

 

-    Changes to Levels 1-7

·    Reduction in the size of kitchen windows on western elevation resulting in a more balanced proportion

·    Change to internal walls from curved to flat at lift lobbies to each floor and related reconfiguration of kitchen and bathroom areas of units directly facing the lift on each floor

·    Increase in floor to floor height by 200mm to be 2.85m

 

-    Change to Level 7

·    Increase in roof parapet height by 1.4m to RL50.10, as a result of floor to ceiling height changes on levels 1-7

 

-    Change to Level 8 (Penthouse)

·    Increase in parapet level by 1.4m to RL52.02 as a result of floor to ceiling height changes on levels 1-7

 

-    Roof Level

·    Removal of roof spire element

 

Minor changes to the composition of the elevations of the building to change the proportion of face brickwork to rendered and painted masonry are also proposed. The applicant has also requested the deletion of the visitor parking contribution of $22,250.00 imposed by amended condition 16 to the previous section 96 approval (0285/1996’D’) as the commercial parking requirements have been satisfied by reorganisation of the basement proposed by the above modifications.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.   Application History

 

DA285/96

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

 

DA285/96A

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

 

DA285/96B

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

 

DA285/96

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

 

DA285/96C

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

DA285/96D

Section 96 application to modify Development Consent No. 285/96 to make internal modifications to alter internal layouts of residential floors, resulting in a change in the proposed mix of units, relocation of lift and adjoining plant areas, internal rearrangement of ground floor and increase to the commercial tenancy area at ground floor level. Consent granted by Council at its meeting 10 December 2002.

 

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

 

The current application was lodged on March 19, 2003. The original plans did not show the changes proposed to Stair 3 and were incorporated into a revised set of basement plans and elevations lodged on 11 April 2003.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on 26 March 2003. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1.  Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

The following comments were received from Council’s Director Assets and Infrastructure Services:-

 

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

 

The proposed modifications to the development consent include:

1.     Alterations to the Ground, Basement 1 and Basement 2 RL’s.

2.     Alterations to the height of kitchen windows.

3.     Relocation of the onsite detention tank and subsequent addition of two extra parking spaces.

4.     Widening of the vehicular entry/exit to the basement carpark and the provision of a centre column.

5.     Removal of spire.

6.     Changes to external wall finishings.

7.     Increase in overall building height.

 

Items 2, 5, 6, 7 generally relate to Planning issues. Thus no discussion of these items is provided in this report

 

Item 1: Alterations to the basement RL’s.

It is understood that the proposed alterations involve lowing the basement level some 180mm. No objections are raised by the AIS Department to this proposal.

 

Item 3: Relocation of the onsite detention tank

The AIS Department does not object to relocation of onsite detention tank. It is noted however that amended construction certificate drainage plans will need to be submitted for approval which show a clear overland flow path still being provided from the detention tank out to the street.

 

Item 4: Widening of the vehicular entry/exit to the basement carpark and the provision of a centre column.

 

The EPCD Department is advised that left turn into the basement carpark from Bruce Bennetts Place would be very difficult and the proposed centre column may exacerbate the problem. The AIS Department objects to the centre column being installed.

 

It is noted, however, that the proposal to widen the access driveway is supported by the AIS Department as it would improve the difficult access conditions.

 

The AIS Department does not object to the S96 application being approved, subject to the proposed centre column in the basement access driveway being deleted.

 

Condition 120 requires the column and kerbing proposed to the ground level entry to the parking to be deleted in accordance with the advice provided by the AIS.

 

6.2   Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments:

 

The proposal

Changes to basement car park and residential unit building.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§ Class 6      -   Retail/Shops

§ Class 2      -   Residential units

§ Class 7a     -   Car park

 

Key Issues

 

See DA Consent dated 19 December 2002.

 

A condition requiring all work to be in accordance with the BCA proposed by Environmental Health and Building has been included in the amended conditions of consent (see Condition 120).

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area, the Master Plan requirements of Randwick LEP 1998 are not applicable.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-    State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP65)

-    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (including Draft Amendment 33)

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

-    Draft Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan

-    Development Control Plan – Parking

 

(a)  SEPP 65

 

Section 115, clause (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation (as amended) sets the requirements of SEPP 65 for consideration of section 96 applications. The clause provides that consideration of the SEPP is only required if the original application required design verification from a qualified designer (i.e: the original application was made 12 months or more after the commencement date of the SEPP) then consideration of the SEPP is unnecessary.

 

The original application was made in 1996. SEPP 65 commenced in July 2002. Detailed consideration of SEPP 65 is not required for this application. Notwithstanding this exclusion, the proposed modifications will not result in significant changes to the previously approved materials or built form of the proposal. The removal of the roof spire element is supported, as it does not enhance the design of the building in the street or in relation to buildings in its immediate context. The development provides a building of an appropriate scale and density in this location. The proposed modifications will not impact on the amenity provided to residents nor neighbours. The proposal is consistent with the design principles of SEPP 65.

 

(b)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

·      Clause 32- Floor Space Ratio

·      Clause 33- Building Heights

 

Draft Amendment 33 to the RLEP98 is currently on exhibition. If adopted, the amendment will have the effect of removing the height, FSR and landscaping standards from the RLEP98, incorporating the number of storeys height control from the Draft DCP into the LEP. The amendment also proposes the introduction of objectives to ensure the ongoing vitality of Maroubra Junction and ensure the environmental and design quality of new residential flat developments.

 

The current LEP sets a statutory height limit of 24 metres for the subject site. The proposed increase in the floor to ceiling heights of the building will result in an increase in the height of the top parapet of the building of 1.4 metres. Despite the increase, the removal of the roof spire element will reduce the overall height of the building from 31.72 metres to 25.77 metres. This exceeds the current statutory height limit and as SEPP 1 is not applicable to section 96 applications the proposed height has been assessed on its merits, without a supporting SEPP 1 objection.

 

Draft Amendment 33 to the LEP limits the height of 8 storey buildings, with a maximum height, measured to the underside of the topmost ceiling of 26.7 metres. The currently approved building has a height of nine storeys. The proposed changes to the floor to ceiling heights will result in the height of the building (to the underside of the Level 9 ceiling of 25.77 metres). This complies with the overall height limit under the Draft LEP of 26.7 metres, despite exceeding the number of storeys indicated in the Draft LEP. The increase in the floor to ceiling heights will improve the amenity of the units and will result in a building that comes closer to achieving the more generous floor to ceiling heights encouraged by Draft Amendment 33.

 

A detailed assessment of the height increase has been made in Section 10.2 of this report. The proposed modifications will not result in increases to the gross floor area of the development as originally approved. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the RLEP98.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

(a)    Development Control Plan No. 15 – Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre

 

The provisions of DCP No. 15 are currently under review following the completion of the Draft Maroubra Junction Urban Design Guidelines.

 

DCP No 15. – Maroubra Junction uses angled height planes to determine the height and form of buildings. The approved building envelope of the building does not meet the height plane described in the DCP, being a 45o angle above a height of 8 metres on Boyce Road. The changes are proposed to the height of the building will not result in significant additional non-compliance with DCP No. 15.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to DCP No.15.

 

(b)    Draft Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan

 

The Draft Maroubra Town Centre DCP has limited relevance to the proposal as the application seeks modification to an approval granted prior to consideration of the Draft DCP. The building footprint and FSR of the proposal will not change as a result of the modifications proposed. Although a maximum number of storeys for the site has not been indicated in the block plan or 3D envelope study the text stipulates sites along Boyce Road are to developed to be a maximum of six storeys. The existing approval allows for nine storeys and the proposed increase in the height of the building will not result in additional storeys. The increase to the floor to ceiling heights from 2.65 to 2.85 will result in compliance with the minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres stipulated in the DCP.

 

(c)  Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP- Parking has been considered under section 10.7 of this report.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1   Substantially the Same Development:

 

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”. The development has been modified on several occasions since the original granting of consent by the Health and Building Committee at its meeting of 19 November 1996. The current application to modify the existing consent must be considered against the development as originally approved.

 

The application is considered to result in a building that will be substantially the same as the previously approved development, being a mixed use, residential and commercial building of nine storeys in height. The modifications to the height of the building, window configurations and removal of the roof spire will not have a significant impact on the external building envelope and visual bulk and scale of the development as currently approved. The changes to the basement levels will result in greater compliance with parking and an improvement in the vehicular access to the site. Changes to the internal layout of the building will not detract from the external or internal form of the building. The approved overall building height (to the top of the roof spire) will not increase as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposal is considered to result in a development that is “substantially the same” as that originally approved, and therefore may be considered by Council under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2   Consideration of Submissions

 

No submissions were received as a result of the notification of the proposal.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1 Floor Space Ratio

 

No change to the floor area of the approved development is proposed.

 

10.2 Building Height, Bulk and Scale

 

The proposed modifications will increase the height of the Level 7 and 8 roof parapets by 1.4 metres. This will result in a negligible change to the appearance of the building, as the increase is distributed evenly over the nine storeys previously approved (in raised floor to ceiling heights). Existing and approved developments to the east, west and south of the site are taller than the proposal and will further mitigate any impacts of the increased parapet height.

 

The removal of the roof spire results in a reduction in the overall height of the building by 4.55 metres. The removal of this element will not significantly impact on the architectural presentation of the building.

 

Minor changes proposed to the proportion of face and painted brickwork will not significantly detract from the appearance of the building and the articulation of the facades. No objection is raised to the proposed changes.

 

The proposed modifications are appropriate in terms of building height, bulk and scale.

 

10.3 Urban Design

 

The building is located on a narrow, rectangular site that is surrounded by existing and approved developments, which are taller than the proposed building. The building is oriented towards Bruce Bennetts Place and the placement of the spire reflects this, being located in the middle of the long (eastern) elevation to this frontage. Traditionally, spire elements have been used to locate buildings from a distance and assist in way finding. Spires are also often used to accentuate the height of buildings at their corners to highlight the intersections of streets.

 

In this case, the location of the spire at a lower level than surrounding buildings reduces its visibility and any contribution such an element may make to the skyline of Maroubra Junction or as a marker in the urban fabric of the centre. The location of the spire in the centre of the built form and the composition of the long elevations to be the predominant facades has removed any significance of the spire in relation to the site’s location at the intersection of Bruce Bennetts Place with Boyce Road and Glanfield Street (closed). Therefore, no objection is raised to the removal of the roof spire.

 

10.6 Impacts on Adjoining Development

 

Privacy and Overlooking

 

The proposal will result in a reduction in the height of windows in the western elevations. The reduced window heights will result in a greater area of face brickwork to the western elevations, which will result in fewer opportunities for overlooking of dwellings to the west and will provide openings with a square aspect ratio, to achieve greater visual consistency with the rest of the western elevation.

 

Overshadowing

 

The increase in height of the proposal by 1.4 metres will result in slightly lengthened shadows midwinter, however this will not result in significant additional overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties, due to the existing scale of surrounding development and recent approvals.

 

Views

 

The increase in the height of the proposal by 1.4 metres will not significantly interfere with existing view and outlook opportunities from surrounding sites. Approved development on the site to the east (707-745 Anzac Parade) is up to nine storeys in height above a podium level of 1.5 storeys in height. It is considered that this development will limit any easterly outlook opportunities further reducing the impact of the proposed height increase proposed to the approved building. The proposed modifications are satisfactory with regard to view and outlook impacts.

 

10.7 Carparking and Delivery Access

 

The changes proposed do not increase the floor area of the building and as such will not result in increased traffic generation compared with the approved development.

 

The Randwick DCP – Parking provides the applicable parking rates and controls for the site. The parking requirements for the proposed development under the DCP Parking are detailed in the table below-:

 

Development Control Plan Parking, 1998

 

 

Control

Previously Proposed

Current Application

Complies

Commercial Parking

1 space per 40m2 GFA

(2.75spaces)

1 space (including 1 accessible space)

3 spaces

Yes

Accessible Parking

1-2% of commercial requirement (0.03 space)

1 space

1 space

Yes

Loading

1 space per 400m2 commercial GFA (0.28 space)

1 space

1 space

Yes1

Subtotal

4 spaces

2 spaces

4 spaces

Yes

Residential

 

 

 

 

1 bed

1 space per unit

(14 spaces)

14 spaces

14 spaces

Yes

2 bed

1.2 spaces per unit

(22.8 spaces)

23 spaces

23 spaces

Yes

3+ bed

1.5 spaces per unit

(10.5 spaces)

11 spaces

11 spaces

Yes

Visitor Spaces

1 per 4 dwellings

(10.5 spaces)

11 spaces

11 spaces

Yes

Carwash Bay

1 per 12 dwellings (can be visitor spaces) (3.5 spaces)

2 spaces

4 spaces

Yes

Subtotal

59 spaces

59 spaces

59

Yes

Total

63 spaces

61 spaces

63

Yes

Bicycle Parking Commercial

 

1 per 10 vehicle spaces (1)

 

Not Indicated

 

1

 

Yes

Residential

1 per 3 dwellings (14)

Not Indicated

16

Yes

Visitor

1 per 10 dwellings (4)

Not Indicated

4

Yes

Total

19

Not Indicated

21

Yes

1 To be shared with residential component of the building.

 

The plans submitted with this application have incorporated changes to satisfy conditions imposed on the previous section 96 application. This has increased the carparking proposed to comply with Council’s DCP and indicated the location of bicycle parking in accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking. The previously imposed section 94 contribution of $22,250.00 to compensate for the parking deficiency of 2 commercial spaces may therefore be deleted (see proposed amendment to Condition 16).

 

Changes to the basement levels and ramp gradients to improve manoeuvrability have been made. The general RL of Basement 2 has been reduced by 180mm to RL 20.1. The floor of the carpark at Basement 2 has been tilted to a gradient of 1:70 to improve the efficiency of the carpark ramps. The RL of Basement 1 has increased by 80mm and the floor graded to 1:60. The ground floor level parking has reduced in level by 450mm to RL25.90.

 

The exit and entry to the basement level carparking has been widened from 7.0 metres to 8.0 metres and a column incorporated to divide entering traffic from exiting vehicles. The width of 8 metres exceeds the recommendation of 3.0-6.0 metres for driveways of Type 1. However, due to the location of the driveway which makes manoeuvring difficult the proposed width is considered appropriate. The increased width of the driveway by 1 metre will not result in significant impacts on the streetscape to Bruce Bennetts Place, or pedestrian amenity. Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the revised details and is satisfied that the development adequately caters to estimated traffic volumes and safety issues, subject to the removal of the central column and kerbing to the entry to the carparking at ground level (see Condition 120).

 

The proposal, subject to conditions of consent is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Council’s DCP – Parking.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for support subject to conditions. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as that originally approved and may therefore be approved by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.96/00285/DG on property No.89-91 Boyce Road, Maroubra in the following manner:-

 

1.         That Conditions Nos. 1 and 16 be amended to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the development consent dated 19 November 1996, as amended by the Section 102 application received on 2 May 1997 and the additional material received on 17 July 1997 and fax dated 24 July 1997, and further amended by the Section 96 application and the accompanying plans with Sheet Nos. A11 to A19 – Issue A dated as received by Council on 4 May 2001 and further amended by the Section 96 application and the accompanying plans with Sheet No. A11-D dated as received by Council on 24 October 2002 and Sheet Nos. A12-E, A13-C, A14-C, A15-C, A17-C dated as received by Council on 17 October 2002 except as may be superseded by Revision B of plans numbered CC-201 to CC-204, CC-601 and CC-602, stamped received by Council on 11 April 2003 and Revision A of drawings numbered CC-205 to CC-208 and CC-603stamped received by Council on 17 March 2003 and drawn by PTI Architects, except as amended by the following conditions:

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for Section 94 Contributions:

 

16.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision or improvement of public open space in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $75,386.22. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of community facilities in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $33,332.68.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of townscape improvements in the Maroubra Junction town centre for an amount of $2,975.40. This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

In accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for administration charges for an amount of $425.00.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

3.   That the following additional conditions be imposed:

 

120.  The column and kerbing proposed to the ground floor entry to the carparking are to be deleted so that the widened driveway has a clear internal span. This condition is imposed to ensure adequate area for vehicle manoeuvring is maintained. Details required by this condition are to be included in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

121.  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.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 34/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

17 Woonah Street, Little Bay

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1138/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 1138/2002 of 17 Woonah Street, Little Bay for new dwelling house for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 29 April 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans.

3.  Assets and Infrastructure Services Memo dated 19 March 2003.   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

DA 1138/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 New Dwelling House

PROPERTY:

17 Woonah Street, Little Bay

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

Rawson Homes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s Sullivan, Daley and White. The estimated cost of the development is $ 320 170.00

 

The application details the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new brick, veneer, tile roof dwelling.

 

The main issue for consideration is the large Norfolk Island Pine Tree that will be impacted upon as a result of the proposed development. Council’s Tree Management Officer has advised that the removal of the tree cannot be supported and the applicant has refused to modify the plans to permit the retention of the tree and therefore ensure its on going health and stability.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new two storey, brick veneer, tile roof dwelling comprising a double garage, living, dining, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and study at ground level and five bedrooms and three bathrooms to the first floor. The dwelling will have a total floor area of 340m5.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is within a residential area which includes a mixture of older style and contemporary dwellings. The site is on the southern side of Woonah Street and has a street frontage of 15.255m and an area of 684m5. The site falls across the site from west to east with a difference in levels of up to 1.5m and from the rear of the site towards the street with a difference in levels of up to 1.7m. At present there is a single storey weatherboard dwelling and in ground swimming pool on the site as well as a significant Norfolk Island Pine Tree.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

There are no other relevant matters relating to this premise.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, and the following comments have been provided from Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services:-

 

‘ The EPCD Department is advised that Council’s landscape technician requests that an Arborists report, in relation to the Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) (See Landscape comment 1b) be submitted prior to issuing any development consent as the tree is to be retained. The Arborists report will determine the location (redesign) and /or type of construction method required for the garage, driveway and pathway.

 

Landscape conditions for this development consent will be forwarded once Council’s Landscape  Technician has assessed the Arborist’s report.

 

1.   There are two trees that will be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a.   One specimen of Archontophoenix species (Bangalow) located towards the rear of the site. This tree is in excess of 5-6 metres in height appears to be in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement tree within the site.

 

b.   One specimen of Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located towards the front of the site. This tree is in excess of 10 metres in height in good health, is a significant specimen within the city of Randwick and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order as such this tree is to be retained.   

 

      The plans indicate that the proposed driveway, pathway and driveway are to be constructed within 2 metres of the Norfolk Island Pine, which may, given the age and size of the tree, have a detrimental effect on the health of the tree.

 

      In order to determine the effect of the proposal upon the health of this specimen the applicant should be asked to engage an Arborist, who is a member of the National Arborists Association of Australia to investigate the existing health of the tree and what effect, if any, the work will have upon the health of the tree. The Arborists Report should include the following:

 

i.      Determine the health and longevity of the tree independent of the proposed works.

 

ii.   Undertake exploratory trenching along the line of the proposed garage and driveway to determine the exact location and size of tree roots in the area.

 

iii.  From the investigations above determine what effect, if any, the proposal will have upon the health of the Norfolk Island Pine tree. If the Aborist determines that the clearance from the tree trunk to the proposed changes in soil level and construction of the garage, driveway and pathway is insufficient to prevent damage to the tree, the Arborist is to specify a minimum clearance and/or method of construction that is required from the outer edge of the tree trunk. All architectural plans shall be subsequently amended to show the clearances specified by the Arborist.

 

An Arborists Report has been lodged and the following comments were received.

 

“The DEPCD is advised that an arborists report was received relating to the subject Norfolk Island Pine Tree and this report was assessed by Council’s Tree Management Officer, (see copy of Bryan Bourke’s memo dated 19/3/2003 attached). The Tree Management Officer’s report identified a number of areas where he disagreed with the report prepared by the applicant’s consultant arborist.

 

The arborists report did not provide recommendations for ensuring the retention and long term health of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree, (as requested), but rather argued the case for removal of the tree.

 

The Director recommends the following course of action:

 

1.   That the applicant be advised that Council does not support the removal of the large Norfolk Island Pine Tree, (located within the front yard of the subject development site).

 

2.   That the applicant be requested to either modify the design and/or construction techniques for the proposed development with a view to ensuring the long term health and stability of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree.

 

3.   That the application either not be determined until the applicant has modified the design and/or construction techniques for the proposed development or be refused.”

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1       Policy Controls – DCP Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, the degree of overshadowing is reasonable and will not result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises

WATER MANAGE-MENT

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes through conditions of consent.

 

 

Yes through condition of consent imposed.

 

 

 

 

Yes through conditions of consent.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

allows year-round use

minimises impact on neighbours

addresses privacy and sun access

addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Yes 60% of the site provided as landscaped area.

 

Yes greater than 25sqm provided.

 

Yes greater than minimum dimensions.

 

Private open space located to the rear of the dwelling.

 

Yes, more than 20% provided as soft landscaping.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

 

Yes the FSR will be 0.49:1 which satisfies the preferred solution maximum

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Yes external wall height maximum 6.8m.

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Yes the proposed dwelling maintains the existing setback from the front boundary

 

The dwelling readily complies being sited in excess of 16m from the rear boundary

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Yes, the building is sited 1500mm from each side boundary

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

 

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

 

Yes, the windows within the upper level serve only bedrooms and the balcony to the front of the dwelling will only overlook the street.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the main entry of the dwelling is directly opposite the street alignment.

There are ample windows which permit casual observation of the street and roadway

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Yes, the proposed garage is within the overall envelope of the dwelling and will not detract from either the appearance of the dwelling or the streetscape

 

8.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Norfolk Island Pine Tree

 

The proposed dwelling complies with the floor space ratio (FSR), height and setback preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and is therefore satisfactory in that regard. However, the large Norfolk Island Pine Tree adjacent to the driveway and path to the dwelling and will be adversely impacted upon by the proposed development.

 

Council’s Tree Management Officer does not support the removal of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree as argued by the applicants Arborist, and the applicant is not prepared to either amend the plans to ensure that the driveway design does not affect the tree. Further, the applicant has not proposed any construction techniques for the proposed development to ensure the long term health and stability of the Norfolk Island Pine.

 

It is noted that the application does not identify significant constraints such as the tree in the site analysis and careful evaluation of the site is essential for good design.  It is considered that little thought has been given to this important phase of site development.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

The existing Norfolk Island Pine Tree adjacent to the proposed driveway is in excellent health and makes a significant positive contribution to the local streetscape amenity and it’s removal cannot be justified. The applicant has refused to amend the proposal to retain the Norfolk Island Pine Tree and ensure the long term health of the tree.

 

Therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.1138/02 for permission to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a new two storey brick veneer tile roof dwelling at 17 Woonah Street Little Bay for the following reasons: -

 

1.         The proposal will adversely impact upon the health of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree.

 

2.   The Site Analysis provided with the application is inadequate in that it does demonstrate that the development opportunities and constraints of the site have been instrumental in shaping the design of the proposed development.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         A4 Configurations

2.         Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services report of 19 March 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 35/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

178 - 182 Marine Parade, Maroubra (Maroubra Bay Hotel)

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0974/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 974/2002 of 178 – 182 Marine Parade, Maroubra for redevelopment of the Maroubra Bay Hotel (Heritage Item) by constructing two new 5 storey residential wings to either end of the existing hotel comprising of a total of 50 new residential dwellings including basement car parking for 87 vehicles.  The proposal also involves the provision of three new retail tenancies and upgrading and expanding the ground floor hotel for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 9 May 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LARISSA OZOG

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATOR ASSESSMENT

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 May, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0974/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 The proposal involves the  redevelopment of the Maroubra Bay Hotel (Heritage Item) by constructing two new 5 storey residential wings to either end of the existing hotel comprising of a total of 50 new residential dwellings including basement car parking for 87 vehicles.  The proposal also involves the provision of three new retail tenancies and upgrading and expanding the ground floor hotel.

PROPERTY:

 178 - 182 Marine Parade, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 MULTIPLEX MAROUBRA PTY LTD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination as the cost of construction exceeds $2million. The cost of the project is estimated at $13.5million.

 

The proposed development involves the renovation and redevelopment of the existing Maroubra Bay Hotel to incorporate a new multi-unit housing development containing 50 dwellings, three new  ground floor retail tenancies, extension to the existing hotel and basement car parking for 87 vehicles. The development includes the renovation and refurbishment of the Maroubra Bay Hotel which is a designated Heritage Item incorporating the retention of the front façade and conversion of the internal spaces into self contained residential apartments. The ground floor hotel is to be upgraded and modernized. The new development essentially incorporates two new  five storey residential wings attached to both sides of the existing hotel which are sited on that part of the site that is currently an elevated beer garden and along the western side of the site where the existing bottle shop is situated. The new residential components are contemporary in their design.

 

The application originally sought approval for a development that comprised of a total of 6 levels with basement car parking and a total of 53 dwellings. The applicant subsequently amended the plans to address Council’s concerns by reducing the height of the development (eliminating the 6th floor and reducing the number of units and amount of floor space). These plans were renotified and readvertised for 14 days. The proposed development has generated a lot of community interest for a number of reasons mainly the important and prominent location of the site, the heritage significance of the Maroubra Bay Hotel as a heritage item and the exceedence of the development standards relating to height and floor space.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Interim Design Review Panel for comment in respect to compliance with the planning and design provisions stipulated in State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development. There was no objection raised to the development subject to conditions of consent being imposed. No objections were raised in respect to the heritage impact of the scheme and the proposed development is considered to satisfactorily address the purpose of Clause 47 of the LEP 1998 – Conservative Incentives.

 

It is recommended that Council approve the application for the redevelopment of No.178-182 Marine Parade, Maroubra subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The original development application was lodged on 14 October 2003 and involved the refurbishment of the Maroubra Bay Hotel (Heritage Item) and the erection of two new residential wings at either end of the hotel comprising of 6 storeys. The new residential component comprised of a total 53 dwellings (26 x one bedroom dwellings), (25 x two bedroom) and (2 x three bedroom). The development incorporated the renovation of the existing hotel at the ground floor and the construction of three new retail units along Marine Parade. Basement car parking for 87 vehicles is proposed.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 29 January 2003. These form the basis of this assessment and comprise of the deletion of the top (sixth floor) of the development, reducing some of the floor space within the hotel at the ground floor level and reconfiguring the residential component by reducing the number of dwellings to have a total of 50 dwellings (3 x studios), (26 x 1 bedroom), (17 x 2 bedroom) and (4 x 3 bedroom).

 

In summary the proposal includes two basement car parking levels where vehicular access is provided off McKeon Street and include 87 car parking spaces, lifts, garbage compactor, bicycle racks, storage, the existing cellar and a new cellar. The ground floor includes the existing hotel and its proposed extension and three new retail tenancies sited along Marine Parade, loading dock, plant room, substation, fire control room, some residential units and courtyards. The first floor consists of residential units, and a large communal landscaped courtyard. The remaining upper levels comprise of residential dwellings. The main pedestrian entry to the development is via Marine Parade.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site faces Maroubra Beach, on the north-western side of Marine Parade at its intersection with McKeon Street Maroubra. With two street frontages, the property only abuts two other developments along its northern and western boundaries.The subject site is prominently located on the corner of Marine Parade and McKeon Street and is occupied by the Maroubra Bay Hotel, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998. The proposed development also incorporates the site to the north currently occupied by a semi-detached cottage No.178 Marine Parade. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, with the length of its boundaries as follows;

 

·    North-western                    43.165metres

·    South-western                    34.22metres

·    South-eastern                     52.145metres

·    North-eastern                     56.985metres

 

As such the configuration of the site is elongated with the eastern boundary to Marine Parade exceeding the western boundary in length. The total site area is 2,069m2.

 

The site falls quite dramatically from the northern side to the south of about 6metres but has a gentler cross fall.

 

Adjoining the property to the north, along Marine Parade is a semi-detached dwelling (No.176 Marine Parade) with other typical three storey residential flat buildings (RFB’s) further to the north dating from the 1960’s to 1970’s generally with some more modern RFB’s. On the western part of the site along McKeon Street a proposal has recently been approved for a three storey mixed development at No.34-36, and the general streetscape on the northern side comprising of three-four storey residential flat buildings some with retail shops at the ground floor level. Along the southern side of McKeon are predominantly two storey shop top developments dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s.

 

To the east is Maroubra beach with the proposed development gaining uninterrupted views of the beach and adjoining foreshore.

 

The Maroubra Beach Town Centre is currently going through a period of transition and transformation and its popularity has increased mainly due to the recent beach and foreshore upgrade.

 

 

 

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

The site is the subject of a large number of previous development applications. The following DA’s are considered to be the most relevant.

 

DA 03/81 -      Alterations and additions to the proposed building was approved on 25/2/81.

 

DA 171/83 -    Proposal to enlarge the first floor component was approved by Council on 9/8/83.

 

DA 147/91-     Renovations to improve and restore the hotel were approved on 21/8/91.

 

DA 501/97 -    Approval was granted on 3/2/98 to include a café and live entertainment as part of the hotel.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was both notified to adjoining residents by way of a letter and also advertised in the local newspaper. Fourteen days was given for submissions to be lodged with Council. A total of 33 individual letters objecting to the proposal were received and four petitions with a total of 397 signatures (a breakdown of the petitions is 38, 55, 19 and 285 signatures). One letter was received in support of the application.

 

The main reasons of objection are summarized below as;

 

·    An overdevelopment of the site.

·    A substantial loss of ocean and coastal views will be experienced by many neigbouring and surrounding properties.

·    Excessive overshadowing created by the proposal.

·    The height exceeds Council’s development control and is considered to be unacceptable in its current form.

·    The 15m boundary wall to the north will have an adverse impact onto the immediately neighbouring semi-detached cottage.

·    The proposal is incompatible in scale and form to that of the neigbouring semi-detached dwelling house.

·    Loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

·    An unacceptable amount of overlooking will be created by the proposal to the north, west and north-west in particular.

·    The proposal is merely a commercial venture which doesn’t consider the amenity of the surrounding area.

·    The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape.

·    The design and quality of materials is considered to be poor and the modern additions will have an inappropriate relationship with the existing Heritage Item (the Hotel building).

·    The proposal will establish an undesirable precedent.

·    The floor space, bulk, size and density of the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and out of character with the immediate locality.

·    The proposal will create a devaluation of property values for many surrounding dwellings and units.

·    The community consultation process comprising of a fourteen day period is considered to be too short a timeframe to provide appropriate comments.

·    The SEPP No.1 objections in respect to height and the floor space are unsupportable.

·    The proposal will be out of character with the foreshore and immediate locality.

·    It will increase traffic and create car parking problems in the area.

 

The amended proposal which was submitted on 29 January 2003 was renotified and readvertised for a period of 14 days. A total of 21 letters of objection were received including two petitions, one with 13 signatures and the second with 136 signatures. The only additional issues raised included:

 

·    Inappropriate use of building materials which were unlikely to be durable in the harsh foreshore environment.

·    Design is considered to be a more critical and important issue than height. The design should set a high standard of development.

·    Insufficient provision of off street car parking.

 

These issues will be assessed in greater detail in the Assessment section of this report.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

6.1       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

The original proposal was referred to Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Department (DAIS). DAIS raised several issues and concerns with the development that required either amendments, or further details. This related to;

 

·    The loading dock proposed only accommodates a small to medium sized vehicle and for a development of this size it should accommodate a large truck as well.

·    Car parking area didn’t comply with Council’s DCP 2 or the Australian standards.

·    Ramp grades didn’t provide for adequate transition grades.

·    Inadequate location and size of waste/garbage storage areas.

·    Some of the new hotel extension is still sited below the 1:100 year flood level.

 

The proposed development was amended on the 29 January 2003  and further details provided on 28 March 2003 in order to address the issues raised by DAIS these details were referred again to the Department of DAIS for comment.  The DAIS was generally satisfied with the amended plans have stated that the applicant has addressed their main concerns. Conditions of consent are imposed to ensure compliance. Their most recent comments include the following;

 

An amended application has been received (dated 28/3/03) for refurbishment of the existing hotel, construction of a new mixed-use development containing 50 residential  units, 155sqm of retail floor space and two levels of basement carparking.

 

Landscape Comments

There are ten (10) trees numbered 3-12 on the External Detail Survey plan, drawing no. 1100560003, rev 01, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that may be affected by the proposed works. These trees are all between 5 and 6 metres tall and comprise of  Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush), Xylomelum species (Woody Pear) and various other smaller trees. None of these trees are considered significant and worthy of retention. As such permission should be granted for the removal of these trees subject to the planting of six (6) replacement trees within the site.

 

There are two (2) Coprosma repens (Mirror Bushes) located within the adjoining property to the north west, right on the common boundary. Both of these trees are approximately 4 metres tall with a canopy spread of 3 metres and it appears likely that they will be required to be removed in order to allow for the proposed construction to take place. Neither tree is significant, however, due to the fact that these trees are not within the development site, the applicant must either liaise with the owner of the adjoining property with the view to removing and replacing both trees or alternatively the applicant will have to redesign a portion of the development to ensure the long term health and stability of the trees. The applicant, in a letter dated 28/3/2003, has indicated that negotiations are being held with the adjoining owner regarding removal of the two trees.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

All site stormwater shall be discharged via a sediment/silt arrestor pit to Councils underground drainage system at the front of the site in Marine Parade. It is noted that the silt arrestor pit shall be located in an open area near the property boundary where overflow can be directed to Council’s kerb and gutter.

 

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

 

To prevent floodwater affecting the subject development:

 

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

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

 

Traffic Comments

The original proposal and the accompanying Traffic Report prepared by Coulston, Budd, Hunt and Kalfes was referred to the Traffic Committee for comment. No objection was raised in respect to traffic and parking.

 

Parking provisions

 

Adopting the parking generation rates from Council’s DCP for Parking, the parking demands for the development may be estimated as follows:

 

Residential component:

 3 x studios                  3 x 0.5             =         1.5

26 x 1 bedroom           26 x 1              =         26

17 x 2 bedroom           17 x 1.2           =         20.4

4 x 3 bedroom            4 x 1.5             =         6

 

TOTAL                                                =         54 (53.9) spaces

 

Visitor spaces              50/4                 =         13 spaces

 

Retail component:

 155 m2                       155/40             =         4 (3.9) spaces

 

Thus the total number of parking spaces required for the proposed development is 71 spaces (excluding the parking demands from the hotel which are considered to be an existing deficit).

 

The submitted plans show a total of 87 spaces being provided on the site, of which 22 are in a stacked arrangement. Given that there is an extra 16 spaces proposed with the development, no objections are raised to 11 of the extra spaces being provided as stacked spaces. The stacked spaces shall be assigned to the residential units in stacked pairs.

 

Carpark Layout

 

The amended submitted basement floor plans show the carspaces generally being 2.5 metres wide and 5.4 metres long with aisle widths generally 5.8 metres. This is not in compliance with Council’s DCP for parking which specifies a minimum carspace size of 2.5 x 5.5 metres together with an aisle width of 6.0 metres (or 7.0 metres for dead end aisles), however the carpark layout is generally in compliance with the Australian standards (AS 2890.1-1993)

 

Loading Zone

In a document dated 30/4/2003 the applicant has submitted swept paths for a medium and small rigid truck to use the loading zone. The DAIS recommends that the applicant be conditioned, (deferred commencement condition), to design the loading bay and surrounds to cater for a medium rigid vehicle.

 

The loading zone area is below the estimated 1 in 100 year flood level however there are no objections to this proposal provided the loading zone area is clearly marked with the 1 in 100 year flood level (RL 6.35m AHD) and signposted so as to prohibit the storage of goods within the loading zone area below this level.

 

Traffic Generation

The average traffic generation for the residential component of the development consisting of 50 residential units will be in the range of 200 to 250 vehicle movements per day, with an expected peak flow volume of approximately 25 vehicles per hour.

 

The submitted traffic study has determined the peak traffic generation from the residential and retail components to be in the order of 31 to 37 vehicle movement s per day.

 

In order to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the nearby intersections of McKeon Street with Marine Parade and Fenton Street, the traffic consultant has undertaken INTANAL analysis of the intersections.  The pre-development level of service for the intersections were found to be A/B (i.e. good with spare capacity), and the traffic report indicates that post-development the surrounding intersections will continue to operate at the same level of service as today, with similar average delays per vehicle.

 

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

 

Alignment Level for Retail Shop

The amended details show the existing Council footpath at the northern end of the Marine Pde frontage being lowered and steps constructed. The EPCD Dept is advised that the AIS Dept will not allow the proposed lowering of the Council footpath, for the retail area, via the construction of steps unless disabled access can be provided adjacent to or near the existing footpath location at the existing grade or flatter than the existing Council footpath at this location.See section 9.10 for further details relating to the proposed concept schemes relating to the treatment of the public area in front of the proposed retail area and existing hotel.

 

The DAIS recommends that a detailed condition be imposed, such condition requiring the applicant to submit for approval, and have approved, full design details for the McKeon Street and Marine Parade site frontage. The alignment level for Marine Parade can be issued following consideration of the footpath landscape design.

 

6.2       Heritage Impact

 

The proposed development involves retaining and refurbishing the existing Hotel which is classified as a Heritage Item pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The integration of the hotel use and its structure is the central focus of the scheme with new works being centred around the existing location and siting of the building.

 

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment. These comments are included below;

 

The application proposes to carry out alterations and additions to the building to provide ground level retail and upper level residential accommodation.  The application proposes an addition to the north of the existing building along Marine Parade and an addition to the west of the existing building along McKeon Street.  The existing building is to be increased in depth towards the rear and two additional levels are proposed above.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Otto Cserhalmi + Partners and a Heritage Economic Appraisal prepared by Multiplex.  The Statement includes the following sections:

·    Historical Background

·    Current situation

·    Conservation policies and actions

·    Assessment of heritage impact

·    Proposed scope of works

·    Appendix A- Schedule of Conservation Works and Costings.

·    Appendix B- 2002 Photographic Survey

·    Appendix C- Historical Images

·    Appendix D- Architectural Plans

·    Appendix E- Economic Appraisal

 

In terms of Historical Background the Statement notes that the Maroubra Bay Hotel was designed by Copeman and Lemont and completed by 1926.  Plans have also been found, dating from the 1920s, of two 3 and 5 storey hotels in Maroubra, indicating an intention to develop the area as a tourist destination.  When it was originally constructed the building had a tiled ground façade, face brick upper level facades with rendered detailing, and open balconies to Marine Parade.  Original plans indicate two bars on the ground floor level, together with a dining room in the projecting bay to Marine Parade, with balconies within the projecting bay at the upper levels.  In terms of heritage significance, the Statement notes that the building constitutes the most visible and cogent evidence of Maroubra Bay attaining recognition and status as a popular resort and residential district by the 1920s.

 

An informal pre-application meeting was held in relation to the proposal.  Concerns were raised regarding the relationship of the proposal to the three dimensional element on Marine Parade and to its neighbours in Marine Parade and McKeon Street.  It was noted that if the proposal sought to rely on the Conservation Incentives clause in the LEP, that an analysis of economic viability would be required, together with a schedule to conservation works, including ongoing maintenance.

 

The conservation policies and actions set out in the Statement are in accordance with Burra Charter requirements.  They include more general policies, as well as specific policies for Treatment of Fabric, Future Use, New Works, Interpretation and Archaeology.  The New Works Policies has made recommendations in relation to new work adjacent to and above the Hotel, in relation to existing facades and internal cross walls.  The assessment of heritage impact of the proposal is contained in the comments on various aspects of the proposal contained in the Scope of Works section.

 

In relation to reconstruction of the hotel’s eastern and southern facades, the application proposes to reconstruct the building to its 1930s configuration, including retiling of ground level façade, removal of paintwork to upper level facades and reinstatement of upper level balconies.  These works will have a positive impact on the heritage significance of the building.

 

In relation to reuse of the ground floor of the hotel, it is noted that little remains of early fitout elements and that the new fitout is to be modern but complementary.  Evidence of earlier fitouts is to be recorded and interpreted.  There are no heritage objections to these works.

 

In relation to first and second floor areas of the hotel, the application proposes to plan the new areas in such a way as to preserve as much original fabric as possible and to retain evidence of the original layout.  There are no heritage objections to these works.

 

In relation to landscaping to the Marine Parade frontage, the Statement notes that the proposed works will improve the setting of the building.

 

In relation to construction of new residential buildings adjacent to the hotel, the development necessitates the infilling of the site, so that its curtilage will be built-upon, rather than unbuilt-upon.  The design of the proposal seeks to minimise heritage impacts by ensuring separation between new and existing fabric, moderating bulk so that the new structure does not overpower the existing, and the use of appropriate materials.  The Statement notes that the proposed adaptive reuse will allow sufficient funds to conserve the building, as well as future sinking funds for future maintenance.  There are no significant objections to the additions to the side and rear of the building, however, additional floor space ratio above that permitted by the LEP needs to be evaluated in terms of the Conservation Incentives clause of the LEP.

 

Clause 47 of Randwick LEP 1998 allows for the floor area of the heritage item to be excluded form the floor space ratio calculations “only where Council is satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item depends on it making the exclusion” and the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected.  Council has received legal advice which concludes that the purpose of the Clause is to encourage conservation of heritage items, but that Council must be satisfied that the necessary funding for conservation works would not be available unless the development was allowed to proceed.

 

The Schedule of Conservation Works includes works to external facades, including brickwork, windows and reinstatement of balconies, waterproofing and internal works, and has been costed to a total of $1.875m.  This Schedule provides a list of short term conservation works to be carried out in conjunction with construction works.  Although the Statement notes that a sinking fund will available for future maintenance, the development application submission does not include a Conservation Plan or Schedule of long term conservation works.  The submission should provide a Maintenance Schedule which identifies inspection, monitoring and repairs to be carried out, and the timing of these works.  These works will become the responsibility of the Body Corporate on completion of the development.  The Maintenance Schedule could be incorporated into a Section 88E instrument, creating a positive covenant on the part of the Owners Corporation in relation to the common property under the strata plan.  The Heritage Economic Appraisal investigates three options for the building for commercial use, hotel use, and mixed hotel/residential use. The original proposal omitted a detailed discussion of the option of a redevelopment of the site without the added height to the hotel. Amended plans were received which provided more details of this option.

 

The amended plans were referred to Council’s Heritage Officer for comment. The proposed reduction in height was considered to be an improvement and the level of integration between the old and new work is considered to be satisfactory from a heritage/conservation perspective. No objections are raised in respect to the proposal.

 

Subject to the imposition of conditions of consent relating to the provision of a detailed conservation plan, maintenance plan (outlining the short and long term restoration initiatives to be undertaken) and the provision of an archival recording and sample of proposed materials and colours are considered to be satisfactory and of high architectural quality. The reliance on the conservation incentive clause has been justified and is appropriate in the circumstances.

           

6.3       State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Developments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat developments of three or more storeys to ensure that these buildings are socially and environmentally sustainable, are a long term asset to their neighbourhood, achieve urban planning policies, are well designed and provide a high degree of architectural merit accompanied by good internal amenity and improve the streetscapes and public spaces they adjoin.

 

Randwick Council has established an Interim Design Review Panel which consists of some of the most recognised architects, urban designers and landscape architects in New South Wales. The panel’s role is to assess developments that fall within the SEPP No.65 category and provide formal comments in relation to each of the ten design quality principles.

 

The proposed development (in its amended form) was referred to the panel for their comments. The panel responded formally in writing on the 2 April 2003. In summary the panel were also satisfied with all aspects of the proposal. They considered that the height, scale and massing of the proposal was appropriate and consistent with the desired future character of the area (particularly when this area is going through a period of change and transition).The panel were satisfied with the density of the proposal and its overall floor space. They considered the landscape design to be well integrated with the built form, providing an adequate amount of communal, public and private open spaces. The social mix of apartments was considered satisfactory allowing for a diversity of occupants. In terms of the aesthetics of the development, the panel found that it was “sophisticated and of high quality” considering the proposed materials and architectural design provides for a variety and composition of building elements and textures that will fit into the context of the area.

 

There were three issues that the panel recommended some greater resolution. These being;

 

1.         Some concern was raised in respect to the treatment of the units No.s G04 and G05 and their relationship with the historic hotel building. The panel suggested a lighter horizontal screen that could return the corner. This will create more transparency and provide for a better relationship between the quite visual octagonal section of the hotel and the new residential wing. A condition will require this treatment (or similar) to be adopted in the final design.

 

2.         The panel felt the upper floor units required better weather protection. A condition will require the provision and installation of light retractable awnings to the upper floor units. There are many modern awning structures that are fixed to the parapet or above the window and have arms that extend out without the provision of any additional side structures. They merely act as shading devices to provide protection from the harsh climatic conditions (especially sun). Such awnings if constructed in light materials and colours will not add any bulk or mass. The condition will restrict the size of the awning to extend no more than 1.5m.

 

These issues can be dealt with and addressed appropriately with the imposition of conditions. The proposed development  therefore complies with the principles, intentions and objectives of SEPP No.65.

 

6.4       Manager Environmental Health and Building

 

No objection was raised in respect to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard conditions relating to noise, demolition and construction activity and ensuring compliance with the Building Code of Australia.                       

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master plan is required to be prepared for redevelopment sites having a total site area of 4000m2 and greater. The subject site has a total site area of 2069m2 and is therefore not subject to the Mater Planning provisions of RLEP 1998.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·    Development Control Plan for Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre

·    Development Control Plan – Parking

·    State Environmental Planning Policy No.1

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

·    Section 94 Contributions Plan.

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the zone being;

 

(a)     To provide opportunities for local, retail and business development in the City of Randwick, and

(b)     To provide opportunities for associated development such as car parking, service industries and the like, and

(c)      To provide opportunities for residential accommodation in local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of he zone, and

(d)     To minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

8.1.1    Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct – Development Control Plan

 

The Development Control Plan for Maroubra Beach was adopted on 16 November 1999 and became effective from 26 May 2000. It was developed in conjunction with the proposed foreshore and civic improvements to the beachside and its immediate surrounds. The DCP is applicable to the properties within the commercial centre at the beach being bound by most of McKeon Street and parts of Marine Parade. The subject site falls within the provisions of this DCP.

 

a)   Aims and objectives

 

The proposed redevelopment and renovation of the Maroubra Bay Hotel complies with the aims of the DCP being;

 

·    To encourage development in the Maroubra Beach commercial precinct which is in harmony with the surrounding area and sympathetic to the street and locality.

 

Comment:

The Maroubra Beach commercial centre is relatively undeveloped with most properties along the southern side of McKeon Street being two storey’s in scale having a typical shop top development style. On the northern side of McKeon Street the form of development is varied and mainly represents many three storey walk up blocks of units that date back to the 1960’s and 1970’s with varying front setbacks. This same form of development is typified along most of Marine Parade with simple three storey residential blocks of flats being represented along most of the street. These buildings can be read as four storeys since most have elevated ground floor levels which incorporate car parking areas. There is very little consistency in built, form, scale, style and design of properties within the centre.

 

The proposed development represents a high standard of design that will enhance the attributes of an area that greatly needs revitalisation.

 

Encourage active street frontages incorporating retail/commercial development at street level.

 

Comment:

The proposed development involves retaining the ground floor hotel use and opening up and modernising this area to take advantage of the aspect, location and orientation of the site (facing the beachfront). Three new retail tenancies are proposed along the north-eastern side of the site where the beer garden existed. This will open up the frontage of this site and create a more active and useable area that will allow for an interface with the public domain in front of the hotel. This is the perfect location for some more retail and public uses that will capitalise on the ocean and coastal views to the east.

 

·    Minimise the potential for buildings in the commercial precinct to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining residential development.

 

Comment:

The development has been modified to reduce the visual bulk and scale of the development by eliminating the top floor of the building. Its scale and height is now comparable with that of immediately adjoining developments. The improvement and reduction in the overall height of the building will reduce the potential for some view loss to properties along Hereward Street and Severn Street to an acceptable level. Although there will be some views lost for some of the higher level apartments surrounding the site many will still retain high quality views which to the ocean, southern headland and its surrounds.

 

The immediately adjoining semi detached cottage at No.176 Marine parade will be isolated by the development. A large boundary wall will be built along the south side of the property reducing the outlook and views currently captured from the terrace above the garage (now converted to a café) and from the first floor balcony. The DCP encourages all development along this commercial strip to be sited to the front boundary to promote the creation of active street frontages. The semi-detached cottage, which still forms part of the commercial centre is stepped back at several levels from the street, and as such it will be impacted by the development. There is scope in the future for this property to be redeveloped to be brought more in line with the proposed development and have a better relationship with Marine parade. The issue of isolation of the adjoining semi-detached property is discussed in greater detail in the section relating to setbacks in this report.

 

·    Promote a strong design ethic and a commitment to the use and quality materials and finishes;

 

Comment:

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Interim Design Review Panel which comprises of recognised Architects, Landscape Architects, Heritage Architects and urban designers for comment in relation to compliance with SEPP No.65. The panel was satisfied with the overall design of the development and felt it would set a high standard of design in the area. Council’s Heritage Advisor was also satisfied with the proposed redevelopment and upgrading of the Hotel and felt that the degree and level of integration between the old and new was considered to be satisfactory.

 

The applicant has submitted with the application a schedule of colours and materials that will reflect the nature of the beachside suburb and are considered to be of high quality.

 

·    Ensure developments are safe and secure for residents and visitors;and

 

Comment:

The proposed development has a simple layout and design to protect residents and visitors to the site. Public and retail activities are clearly distinguished from the private residential uses. Entries to the internal uses are clearly defined, differentiated and secured.  The orientation of the proposed dwellings also allow for casual surveillance of the public spaces.

 

·    Ensure pedestrian amenity

 

The proposed development aims to create a more active frontage along Marine Parade and McKeon Street by providing uses that have direct access off these roadways. The development is promoting a better utilisation of the currently vacant public open space in front of the hotel and opening up the area. As such pedestrians will benefit from an improvement in the public outdoor space.

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Building height

 

The maximum building height for development within the Commercial Precinct at Maroubra Beach is 12m pursuant to clause 33 (5) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The purpose of the height control is “to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and having regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.The intention of the control is therefore to restrict the scale and form of development and reduce amenity impacts such as view loss, privacy and overshadowing.

 

Originally the proposed development had a total height of six storeys varying in overall numerical height of 13.1m to 17.7m. A preliminary assessment indicated that the original proposal was excessive and dominant in relation to the scale of existing buildings in the Maroubra Beach Town Centre.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 29 January 2003 which deleted the upper (sixth floor) level. The development will now have a total height of between 11m (at its lowest point) and generally between 12.5m – 15.7m (at its highest point along McKeon Street). The variation in the height of the development arises from the topography and natural slope  and fall of the land. The highest point of the development is along the McKeon Street frontage (since the site is at its lowest at this point). It should be noted at this point, even the existing hotel building exceeds the 12m height limit. The additional storey  above the Hotel is the main contributing factor to the non-compliance however this portion of the development is setback from the front elevation, behind the Hotel’s existing parapet thus reducing its visibility from both McKeon Street and Marine Parade. It should also be noted that not all of this additional storey exceeds the height limit. The northern section of this development maintains compliance with the height limit.

 

The applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 Objection in relation to the non-compliance with height. The applicant argues that compliance with the control is both unreasonable and unnecessary since the proposal satisfies the purpose of the standard for the following reasons;

 

·    The additional height assists in ensuring the Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct is redeveloped in accordance with the Maroubra Beach DCP, which recognises the need for new development in this area to capitalise on its exceptional scenic quality and improve amenity, particularly at street level with the refurbishment of the existing hotel and additional retail for existing and new residents.

 

·    Concentrating the bulk of the development along the street frontage, but setting the top back to minimise impacts on the street

 

·    Utilising the fall of the land and placing the bulk on the lowest part of the site (along the street) to minimise the impact on distant views.

 

·    Stepping back from the adjoining boundaries to minimise impacts on the adjoining properties and to ensure the retention of nearby views between proposed development and any future adjoining development.

 

·    The shadow diagrams indicate that nearby residential buildings will not be affected by the scale of the proposed development. For comparison purposes shadow diagrams have also been prepared for a 12metre building envelope with a 15metre portion set back from the street. These diagrams indicate that the impact on the public streets would be the same as the proposed development. Similarly they confirm that no part of the beach will be overshadowed by the proposed development, although both the proposal and a 12metre envelop would overshadow part of the promenade in mid-winter.

 

·    The L-shaped form of the development along the street frontages maximises the distance between the new development and existing buildings, with the exception of the building to the west along McKeon Street.

 

·    Utilising the fall of the land and placing the bulk on the lowest part of the site (along the street) to minimise the impact on distant views.

 

In assessing the height of the proposal it is imperative to examine whether the proposed height is consistent with the height of immediately adjoining properties. The applicant has submitted the overall RL’s for adjoining sites for the purpose of comparison. The absolute highest part of the proposal is at an RL of 21.55 (this being the upper floor which is setback 4.66m from the parapet of the hotel). The existing hotel (at the roof level) has an RL of 18.7 and the two new wings will have a total RL of 18.45 (at the fourth level). The overall height of the residential flat building, No.174 Marine Parade has an overall RL of 22.0 and No.170-172 Marine Parade has an overall RL of 25.8. Both these adjoining buildings are higher than the proposed development at its highest point. Along the southern side of the street No.36 McKeon Street has an approved RL of 18.3, No.38 McKeon Street has an RL of 18.19 and No.40 McKeon Street has an RL of 19.36. Again the RL of the parapet of the hotel and new residential wing is compatible and in keeping with the height of these adjoining buildings. Although the upper floor is higher by between 2-3metres, it is setback and will not be seen when walking along either side of McKeon Street. Its visibility will be limited to only a few places. For example, when travelling from the south along Marine Parade the visibility of the building will be obscured and hidden behind the existing Seals Club. When walking along the beach promenade parts of the upper floor will be seen however most of it will be hidden behind the high roof parapet of the hotel. Since Marine Parade rises to the north the visibility and prominence of the building will be greatly reduced since the  existing buildings to the north are sited on higher land and the natural bend of the road also limits its visibility.  The upper floor level will be seen from the western end of McKeon Street but the fact that it is setback 4.66m reduces its visual bulk and breaks up the mass of this elevation. The upper level will not be seen by pedestrians along most sides of McKeon Street due to the narrow nature of the street and the upper level being setback some distance.

It should also be noted that there are several sites (mainly adjoining the Seals Club) have  a permissible height limit of 15m pursuant to the DCP for the Maroubra Beach commercial area. Further, Council in October 2002 approved a proposed mixed use development at No.34-36 McKeon Street which will have an overall height of 14.6m (exceeding the 12m height limit). There are also numerous examples that can be sited in the immediate vicinity of the site that are well over 12m in fact some residential flat buildings are not in the commercial centre and are closer to seven to ten storeys in height namely No.5 McKeon Street and No.16-20 Hereward Street.

 

The additional height is considered to be minor and in general planning principles corner sites should allow for greater height to create and emphasise the importance of the location and create a prominent entry way to any centre and hence become focal points. This intention is reflected in 2.1 of the DCP stating that “to reinforce street corners, corner buildings may have a higher parapet height than adjoining buildings where the additional height enhances the streetscape”. This building achieves this objective within a scale that is comparable to adjoining properties and therefore complies with section 2.1 of Development Control Plan for Maroubra Commercial centre  which states that “the height of buildings at the street frontage must be compatible with adjacent development and in proportion to the street width”.

 

The additional portion of the building which exceeds the height limit is at the upper level and is setback from the street. The fact this upper level is setback will reduce its impacts in respect to both privacy and overshadowing. The degree of overshadowing is no greater than the existing parapet of the hotel which casts a longer shadow due to its siting closer to the street frontage. In respect to overlooking, their will not be any overlooking onto McKeon Street or Marine Parade from this upper level due to its setback, along the north the units have bedrooms and these areas and essentially read as four storeys since the ground floor of the rear portion is located partially below ground. Therefore the height of the bedrooms only exceeds the 12m height limit by less than 1m  and is setback some 20m from the properties at the rear. The proposal does not result in unreasonable loss of views and is consistent with the principle of view sharing. In this case the exceedence does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining or neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development in its amended form still does not comply with the statutory height limit along some sections of the site, however the exceedence is considered to be minor in its nature and the development satisfies the objective of the height standard as stated in the DCP and the purpose of the height control as stated in the LEP 1998. The proposed additional height is not considered to create an unnecessary and unreasonable impact and as such the SEPP No.1 objection is supported in this case.

 

9.2       Floor Space and Conservation Incentives

 

The maximum floor space ratio for the site is 2:1 pursuant to Clause 32 of the Randwick LEP 1998. The purpose of the floor space ratio control is “to establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special uses zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment”.

 

The amended proposal has reduced the FSR from 2.27:1 to 2.18:1 which still exceeds the maximum floor space control. The total FSR for the site excludes the existing floor space of the Hotel. The following table outlines the floor space calculation:

 

 

Site area

 

 

2,069m2

 

 

 

 

Floor Area

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

Permissible floor space

 

 

4,138 m2

 

2:1

 

Existing floor area of the Hotel

 

 

1,393 m2

 

0.67:1

 

Proposed additional development (excluding the floor space of the Hotel)

 

 

4,706 m2 (original)

 

4,510 m2 (as amended)

 

2.27:1 (original)

 

2.18:1 (amended)

 

Total floor area of the Hotel plus the new work

 

 

6,099 m2 (original)

 

5903 m2 (amended)

 

2.9:1 (original)

 

2.85:1 (amended)

 

(the proposal is relying on the heritage exemption under clause 47 of LEP 1998 which allows for the floor space of the heritage item to be excluded if Council is satisfied with the application of this clause).

 

This is discussed in greater detail below.

 

A SEPP No.1 objection has been lodged with the application outlining the following reasons why strict compliance with the maximum permissible FSR is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances.

 

·    The development achieves appropriate conservation of the last remaining heritage item on the beachfront.

 

·    It achieves high quality architectural and urban design solution.

 

·    It complies with the relevant zone objectives of the LEP 1998, in particular adding new high quality development to the precinct, that creates opportunities for local retail and business development and for residential accommodation in business centres which does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone, and minimises the impact on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

·    It generally complies with the relevant provisions of the Maroubra Beach DCP and the Parking DCP such as building design, parking and access, communal and private open space, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and energy efficiency and safety and security.

 

·    Notwithstanding the deduction for the existing hotel, the proposed new floor area is only 567sqm in excess of that allowed under the FSR of 2:1, ie the exceedence is only 9%.

 

The purpose of the floor space control is to limit and restrict the visual mass, scale and bulk of development proposed. Its aim is to create developments that are compatible and consistent with neighbouring and surrounding developments so as not to be too prominent and overbearing. The proposed site is a unique one with special qualities. It’s a prominent location and the proposed development can be categorised as an infill development since it aims to retain the existing hotel building and build around it on areas of the site which are currently underdeveloped (e.g the existing beer garden along Marine parade and the bottle shop along McKeon Street). These areas currently have poor street presentation and are seriously underutlised.  The proposed development will enhance the streetscape by offering a development that has a better relationship with the existing hotel and pedestrian amenity will be greatly improved by creating active street frontages. The scale of the development will be consistent with the adjoining residential flat buildings with the total overall height of the development not exceeding immediately adjoining buildings. Further,  the bulk of the building has been broken up by setting the upper floor level behind the existing parapet of the hotel reducing its visual bulk. The new building wings on either side of the hotel have been modulated and the incorporation of recessed balcony elements further reduces the visual bulk. The opening up of the upper levels of the hotel and reinstating the original balcony forms further breaks up the building horizontally.

 

The purpose of the floor space ratio control as it applies to the Maroubra Beach commercial centre is to allow for a higher and more intense form of development in contrast to the neighbouring residential areas.  Much of the commercial area is still underdeveloped with the buildings on the southern side of McKeon Street reflecting a small scale nature of development that is currently well under both the maximum height and FSR allowable for the centre. It is most likely these properties will be redeveloped to a much greater degree and intensity of development.

 

The proposed development provides for an adequate amount of both private and communal landscaped area. It also complies with Council’s car parking provisions, which indicates that the site can accommodate the proposed additional floor space.

 

The proposed bulk of the development is consistent with surrounding developments, many of which are higher and more intense than what is proposed (e.g Seals Club,  and other neighbouring buildings that have been mentioned in earlier parts of this report), the visual scale of the building is considered to be satisfactory. The additional floor space is considered to be minor and consists of approximately 9% over the maximum FSR. A complying development by removing the upper level is unfeasible from an economic perspective however if considered may provide the alternative of using the roof space as a roof terrace which could also provide for amenity impacts such as overlooking and added noise. Also a roof terrace would create the need for staircase/access structures adding bulk. The proposed additional floor space is not considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances since a complying development could create a greater degree of amenity impacts.

 

The proposed development is relying on the utilisation of the conservation incentive clauses provided in the LEP. Clause 47 of the Randwick LEP states:

 

(1)  Despite any other provision in this plan, the Council may, in respect of a heritage item, grant consent to development for any purpose, but only where it is satisfied that:

 

(a)  the proposed work would not adversely affect the amenity of the locality in which the item is situated or the heritage significance of the item and:

(b)  the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent.

 

(2)  When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land which a heritage item is located, the Council may, for the purpose of determining the floor space ratio, and whether the proposed development will meet the landscaped area and car parking requirements, exclude the gross floor area of the heritage item from its calculation of the floor space ratio of the proposed development but only where the Council is satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item depends on it making the exclusion and the amenity of the locality in which the item is located will not be adversely affected.

 

The development complies with Clause 47 (1)(a) of LEP 1998 as stated above.

 

The purpose of Clause 47 is to introduce incentives to encourage the conservation of heritage items. Council has previously received legal advice wherein it is suggested that given such a worthwhile purpose the clause should be given a liberal interpretation. Notwithstanding a liberal interpretation of the clause, Council must be satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent for a form of development that is seeking a relaxation in the nominated standards. On this point legal advice suggests that council must be reasonably satisfied that the necessary funding for the immediate and on going conservation of the heritage item would be available unless the development was allowed to proceed.

 

In this respect the application is supported by the submission of a Statement of Heritage Impact which detailed a schedule of maintenance proposed to occur for the Hotel. The total cost of maintenance work is valued at $1.875million. The applicant has stated that the proposed scale of new work is required to help subsidise the cost of maintaining and upgrading the heritage item and as such is relying on Clause 47 for exclusion of the existing hotels floor space.

 

The applicant has submitted a Heritage Economic Appraisal in support of need to provide for some additional floor space and to exclude the existing hotels floor space under Clause 47 of the LEP. Several alternative development options were examined being a “do nothing” option (leaving the hotel as it is), a mixed use development (additions to the sides and rear of the hotel but not adding to the height of the building)  and the currently proposed mixed use development.

 

The “do nothing” option is not feasible given the cost of restoring the hotel and the current use of the premises alone in its existing state is not economically viable. The second option of not creating any additional height to the building is also unviable. The economic appraisal concluded  “that a minimum of 4,600sqm of residential floor space is the minimum amount required to produce a viable commercial development. It is not possible to locate this amount of floor space to only the sides and rear of the existing heritage building without substantially compromising the quality, amenity and value of the residential component of the development. The reduced value and quality of the design would result in a non-viable development proposal”.

 

The proposed cost of restoring and improving the Hotel as well as on-going conservation works is significant and as such it is considered satisfactory in the circumstances to utilise Clause 47 for this purpose.

 

Clause 47 of RLEP 1998 also requires Council to be satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality in which the heritage item is situated or the heritage significance of the item. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the on the significance of the item and that the amenity impacts on adjoining and neighbouring residents arising from the proposal would be minimal and acceptable given the context of the site and the architectural resolution of the development.

 

The proposed development will result in a high quality building retaining the use of the ground floor hotel and improving its visual appearance to the benefit of the Maroubra Beach Town Centre and the locality. This particular property is very unique and there are no other properties in the immediate surrounds that could possibly rely on the provisions of Clause 47 since there are no other heritage items in the commercial centre. Therefore the proposed exceedence with respect to the floor space ratio will not set a precedent.

 

The purpose of the floor space ratio control has been satisfied and the numerical exceedence appropriately justified by State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection. The proposal also represent, an appropriate use of Clause 47 of RLEP 1998 and will allow the on-going conservation of the heritage item.

 

9.3       Heritage Impacts

 

Clause 43 of the LEP sets out a series of issues to consider in the assessment of developments affecting Heritage Items, heritage conservation areas or relics. Clause 43(2) outlines the issues to consider in the assessment including:

 

(a)        the pitch and form of the roof. If any, and

(b)        the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for the windows and doors, if any and

(c)        the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of the building.

 

The applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Study accompanying the application. The assessment considered this report and was assessed against the provisions outlined in clause 43. The proposed development, particularly the new work has established a good relationship with the existing hotel in respect to its height, scale and proportions. Although the new work is contemporary in nature and style its design considers the scale and proportions of the hotel and is considered to be sympathetic and integrates well, complying with the intentions of the clause. Council’s Heritage Officer has assessed the proposal and considers that it is generally compatible with the existing item and the streetscape.

 

Clause 45 of the LEP relates to Heritage Notification procedures. The Interim Strategy adopted by the Heritage Council in November 1997 seta out circumstances where the consultation requirements of the REP’s and LEP’s may be assumed to be satisfied without referral to the Heritage Council. The interim strategy only applies to a development application involving demolition of a heritage item or structure that is not an item of State or Regional significance, is not covered by an Interim or Permanent Conservation Order, and is not listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The Heritage Item is not covered by an Interim Heritage Order  and is not listed on the State Heritage Register and is not of State or Regional significance. Further Council has taken into account advice from suitably qualified Heritage experts in the assessment of the development application in accordance with Heritage Council’s interim strategy. As such the consultation requirements of the LEP have been satisfied.

 

9.4       Setbacks

 

The DCP establishes numerical and performance based requirements in relation to building setbacks in the commercial centre. The DCP states that buildings “are to be built to the street frontage and side boundaries where they will match adjacent buildings (existing or proposed). This will help create unity, a greater sense of activity and enhance safety in the public domain”.

 

The proposed development is to be built boundary to boundary since this is the main intention for any developments within commercial centres since this encourages new neighbouring buildings to link and abut each other with no separation and to create uniform and integrated developments. There are no windows proposed along the western and northern elevations which therefore encourages new development to attach itself to the building on either side. The upper floor is setback between 1.87m to 4.77m along the western boundary.

 

The DCP requires the maximum height at the street alignment of 10m for new development adjoining the Hotel along McKeon Street with upper levels being setback 5m and reaching an overall height of 12m. This relates specifically to the new western wing of the proposal (where the existing bottle shop exists along McKeon Street) and is defined as such in a map within the DCP. The proposed height of the western section along the street alignment is 14m, identical to that of the hotel. The development has been designed to be integrated with the scale and height of the existing hotel and the proposed internal levels currently are balanced and correspond with each other. If this western section was to comply with the 10m street alignment height it would be some 4m below the existing roof of the hotel and the internal levels would not relate creating an addition or infill that has no relationship with the existing scale and height of the hotel and would look out of balance. The external features of the hotel will be enhanced and many original features reinstated (e.g recessed balcony’s). In comparison the new elements would be quite contemporary highlighting the clear distinction between old and new whilst amalgamating the main massing and proportions of the new sections. This approach is seen to be a suitable and in design terms more appropriate solution on this particular site. It will not restrict future development to the west that could have heights of 10m to the street alignment stepping away from the proposal, thus further highlighting the importance of the site and its corner location. Despite the non-compliance with the numerical height control to the street alignment the proposal achieves and satisfies section 2.1 part 6 of the DCP stating that “new development is to compliment the Maroubra Bay Hotel’s façade in terms of articulation, detailed design and materials”.

 

The upper level is setback 4.66m, some 340mm short of the required 5m. The applicant provided drawings and conducted a visual analysis to show that the setback proposed will not create a more dominating or imposing structure than one that would comply. The purpose of a smaller setback is twofold, firstly creating slightly larger and more spacious units having better cross-through ventilation and internal amenity without having to extend the building further to the rear (and as such adversely impacting on properties to the rear), secondly the balcony’s within this setback on the roof are considered to be spacious and any larger would be seen to be under-utilised. The non-compliance is considered to be minor and the deficiency of some 340mm in the setback at the upper level will not be visible or set an undesirable precedent.

 

In respect to the setback along the north, the currently semi-detached cottages No.s 178 and 176 are stepped back well behind the Marine Parade street frontage. The proposed development incorporates one cottage (No.178), leaving the other (No.176). In an ideal situation the amalgamation of this site (No.176) would create a better and more integrated development. Council encourages the amalgamation of sites to provide for better urban design and streetscape outcomes however in this instance the applicant was unable to secure the remaining semi-detached cottage even though attempts to purchase it were made. In this case the development can stand alone since it will still be a large and integrated development however will create an isolated cottage. Notwithstanding, this property still has the potential for further redevelopment.

 

The proposal will be built directly on the boundary in an aim to create uniformity in the design with the Hotel. This option will isolate the neighbouring residence and create a large unarticulated wall to this property. The  undeveloped semi could be redeveloped to reach a height of 12m and in the future and abut the proposed development creating a consistent frontage. The residential flat building to the north (No.174) of the semi is built directly to the street frontage despite the fact that this property is no longer part of the commercial centre. As such No.176 building forward to the street would be the ideal scenario. It should also be noted that the property is currently an atypical semi detached dwelling, designed in a way that is incongruous with the nature and character and siting of immediately adjoining properties and is out of character with the nature of the streetscape. An alternative option for the proposed development could be to step each level of the new northern wing back to reduce the potential impact onto this neighbouring property (namely loss of views and the overbearing nature of the building wall along the southern side of the dwelling) however this will be out of character with the scale, siting and design of the Hotel to which the new elements are designed to relate to. It is imperative that any new work be consistent with the form and massing of the Hotel unfortunately in the achievement of this objective which is critical for the future development of the centre and surrounds there will be some impact onto the neighbouring property. However this property is still within the 3B commercial centre and can be redeveloped to follow the scale of the proposal and thus retain and enhance views.

 

The rear building alignment is setback between 12-20m behind a large landscaped courtyard area. This setback is considered satisfactory and will not contribute to a large or substantial degree of overlooking to properties along the southern side of Severn Street since the setback distance is considered to be more than adequate and most of the areas sited towards the rear of the development are bedrooms, there are no living or dining areas as such overlooking is reduced since these areas are unlikely to be intensively utilised.

 

9.4       State Environmental Planning Instrument No.71 – Coastal/Foreshore development

 

The purpose of the SEPP is to consider with greater sensitivity development immediately abutting the foreshore. Only few properties within Randwick LGA have been highlighted as coming under the provisions of the SEPP, most being properties on cliff faces. The subject site is exempt from the provisions of this policy.

 

9.5       Privacy

 

The DCP for the Maroubra Beach commercial centre emphasises the need for new developments to respect the acoustic and visual privacy of neighbouring and immediately adjoining properties.

 

The proposal has been designed in a form to try to minimise the impact of overlooking. The dwellings fronting Marine Parade will be looking out to the beach. Their main living areas capture direct views to the beach. Bedrooms are located towards the west however are setback by approximately 20-28m which is further than the adjoining semi (No.176) and create a good degree and level of physical separation. Added to this is the proposed boundary screening proposed by the planting of mature evergreen trees along the western and northern boundaries of the site (along the communal landscaped courtyard).

 

The apartments facing the north look out onto McKeon Street. These are designed to have recessed balconies so that restricts the view of vision out from the balconies plus the units within the upper levels of the hotel are also recessed retaining the original solid balustrade features which limits the potential for looking into and out of these units and when seated on the balcony it is difficult to look out due to the columns and solid balustrades. The new units may have some potential to look into the first floor dwellings above the shops however this is limited by the fact the windows are currently small and rather difficult to see through and secondly the separation of the roadway and two footpaths provides a total physical separation of approximately 10m which is considered to be adequate.

 

The rear of these units face the north and look onto the backs of properties facing Severn Street. The majority of these units have bedrooms facing this side however they two are separated by about 20m and divided by the screening to be offered by the landscaped courtyard.

 

Also the balconies sited along the western and northern sides of the site will have retractable full-length louvres that further reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

The proposed development has adequately addressed the provisions section 2.3.4 of the DCP in respect to privacy and overlooking.

 

In terms of acoustic privacy conditions of consent will ensure an acoustic report is prepared to outline the degree of potential and likely noise to emulate from the ground floor hotel use and this will be appropriately conditioned to reduce the possible noise generated.

 

9.6       Overshadowing

 

Due to the orientation and siting of the property the shadows cast by the development will be primarily sited towards the southern and eastern side of the property, mainly impacting on the McKeon Street and Marine Parade frontage.

 

In the worst case being June 21st, mid winter the shadow cast by the development will be directed across the roadway and will affect the immediately adjoining properties on the southern side of McKeon Street. These are mainly two storey properties with shops at the ground floor with traditional shop top residences above. These first floor residences will be overshadowed however by 12noon they will not be affected since the shadows cast will be projected on the roadway, affecting only slight areas of the footpath. The shadows at 9am are also projected onto the roadway and the small triangular area of open space in front of the hotel.

 

By 3pm the shadow cast is extended beyond the triangular piece of open space and includes the roadway (Marine Parade) whilst also affecting a small portion of the green open space adjacent to the promenade. This space is not intensely utilised since it is quite elevated and sloping and there are no seats located there. There is a vast amount of open space around the beach precinct with many larger and more prominent spaces that have been dedicated specifically to outdoor activities and uses.

 

The degree and extent of additional shadowing is not considered to be excessive or unreasonable.

 

9.7       View loss

 

Many immediately adjoining properties objected to the proposal due to the view loss that would be experienced by the proposal. It was considered for a number of reasons that the originally proposed height being two storeys above the existing hotel was excessive and would add too much bulk and hence block some views. A site inspection was conducted from numerous properties, 3 units located along Hereward Street and one unit at the rear at Severn Street. The properties along Hereward Street are orientated to capture ocean and coastal views however most of these properties have wide panoramic 180 degree views to the east, south and south-west. The views are quite spectacular from most properties. It was recognised that there would be some view loss from the original proposal and the filling in of the currently vacant parts of the site. The amended proposal will improve the situation since the height is reduced by approximately 2m at the highest point. For some properties this reduction will retain the headland view to the south-east. The degree of view loss is not considered to be significant since most of these properties have wide expansive views.

 

The units located at the rear of the neighbouring property to the west being No.38 McKeon Street which currently experience attractive views of the beach through the vacant beer garden will lose all this view since the new residential unit block will restrict all views. This shouldn’t be unexpected since this block has been fortunate to have benefited from the undeveloped nature of the beer garden area.It has always been inevitable that one day this area will be redeveloped. The proposal incorporates a landscaped courtyard area that will help screen and provide added greenery to the development. Currently the rear of the hotel and associated beer garden is very neglected and a very unattractive piece of land. The proposal will improve this immensely.

 

Some of the higher level units along the southern side of Severn Street currently have views over the existing hotel and capture views of the beach and foreshore. The proposed development will obstruct some of the coastal views to the east and south east however the scale of the development is not uncharacteristic with immediate properties.

 

9.8       Public domain and activity nodes

 

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management outlines a series of objectives for the short and long term improvement of the beach and foreshore. Many of the proposed changes to the public domain have already been initiated to the beachfront, with the majority of the works completed. The proposed development aims to link in with the ongoing improvement to the beachside precinct. For example the proposed upgrading of the ground floor hotel and the proposed new retail tenancies along Marine Parade provide the opportunity to reactivate the street frontages.

 

Both the proposed retail uses and the hotel aim to integrate the disused area of open space on the eastern side that is currently public property and accommodating a bus stop. It is currently fragmented and under-utilised. The applicant in conjunction with Hassell Consultants (who are commissioned on behalf of the Council to help with the ongoing urban design outcomes for the public spaces around the beachfront) has come up with two schemes for the proposed treatment of the outdoor public space in conjunction with the development.

 

Although both schemes are conceptual development options and will require further development particularly in relation to outlining the various paving, street tree planting, landscaping and lighting that plan to be installed (and any seating garbage bins and the like that may be required) to be with Council’s overall intention for the area. At this stage the preferred option is the design that incorporates both a ramp and stair linking to the upper section of Marine Parade, retaining the existing bus stop and creating an attractive outdoor area for seating and entertainment. A deferred commencement condition will require further liaison and consultation in relation to the design and materials proposed to Council’s satisfaction prior to the operation of the consent.

 

9.10     Landscaping

 

There is no minimum numerical requirement for the provision of both communal and private open space. The development includes at about ground floor level an internal courtyard for the residents at the rear of the site. The courtyard has a total area of 414sqm (64sqm at ground and 350sqm at the first floor level). This amounts to 20% of the site. This area is quite large and consolidated into one main area. Access can only be gained from the residential areas and therefore is restricted for use by the residents only. The planting and landscaping is proposed to be of good quality and generally will comprise of soft landscaped area, including native vegetation as well as the inclusion of some larger evergreen trees that will provide a visual buffer, screening and be attractive elements.

 

Any areas located on podiums shall be conditioned to have a minimum soil depth for planting of 600mm.

 

In addition to the large communal courtyard all new residential units have a private balcony facing either Marine Parade or McKeon Street. Some units with dual aspect have two balconies at either end. All ground floor units except G08 have a private courtyard varying in size from 17-36sqm. The balconies vary in size from 7-23sqm. There are four dwellings that don’t have balconies. These are located within the hotel and the conversion of the building and renovation has restricted the ability for them to have a balcony, however considering the development caters for a large area of communal open space and the close proximity of the beach and the surrounding parkland and adequate amount of open space the necessity of these units having a balcony is greatly reduced since the development facilitates such good access to immediately adjoining areas of open space.

9.11     Car parking and Traffic

 

The proposed development complies with the numerical requirements pursuant to the DCP for parking. The table below summarises the main requirements;

 

 

Parking

 

 

Required

 

Proposed

 

Complies (yes/no)

 

Residential

 

3 studios

 

 

26 x 1 bedroom

 

 

17 x 2 bedroom

 

 

4 x 3bedroom

 

 

Visitors

 

 

Retail and hotel extension

 

 

 

 

3 x 0.05 =

1.5 spaces

 

26 x 1 =

26 spaces

 

17 x 1.2 =

20.4 spaces

 

4 x 1.5 =

6 spaces

 

1 per 4 dwellings

= 13 spaces

 

1 space per 40sqm

155sqm

= 4 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

71 car parking spaces

 

 

87 car parking spaces

 

Yes

 

Size of spaces

 

 

 

2.5m x 5.5m

 

2.5 x 5.4m

 

No

 

The size of spaces doesn’t comply with the DCP however is in accordance with Australian Standards.

 

 

Loading and unloading

 

 

One loading dock to service large/medium and small trucks.

 

 

One loading dock

 

Yes

 

However the loading dock will only service a small/medium vehicle (see comments below)

 

The proposed development complies with the minimum numerical requirements for off street car parking pursuant to the DCP-Parking.  The applicant has provided for 16 more spaces beyond the requirement  for the development. Some of these spaces are stacked however they will be distributed to residential apartments. The applicant proposes to allocate some of the additional spaces to the hotel component. Currently the hotel has no off street car parking, and as such the proposal will improve the current car parking situation. The proposed 14 visitor spaces are on the ground level however should be located closer to the entrance thereby increasing their accessibility. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation. A disabled car parking space is also provided.

 

All vehicular access to and from the site will be provided off McKeon Street in the location of the existing bottle shop.

 

Deliveries to the existing hotel (mainly alcohol) were to date provided off McKeon Street and this situation is proposed to be retained. This situation is common for most pubs/hotels since drums are distributed off the street to cellars below. A condition on the consent will restrict the hours of all deliveries to the premises. Other deliveries of goods, stock or the like will be provided internally. There was some concern in respect to the size of the loading dock being smaller and unable to cater for large trucks. The applicant submitted documentation verifying the manoeuvrability to and from the loading dock by both small and medium rigid trucks. The applicant has justified the provision of a smaller loading dock since loading and unloading by larger trucks for the hotel use will occur from the street and despite the large scale of development there will be no need for large trucks to access the site since the proposed dwellings are generally small size which means that there will most likely be less furniture delivered without the need for large removalist trucks. This verification is considered to be satisfactory however better manoeuvrability diagrams are to be provided as a deferred commencement condition.

 

The aisle widths within the basement levels is 5.8m which is below the minimum 6m width required under the DCP however the proposed aisle widths comply with the Australian Standard.

 

The application was accompanied by a Traffic report prepared by Coulston, Budd, Hunt and Kafes traffic consultants. The consultants examined traffic flows in the area and states that the amount of traffic movement to and from the site (being approximately 25 vehicles at the peak flow time) is considered to be satisfactory and in accordance with Australian Standards. The report states that the development will have low traffic generation, only one additional vehicle every 1 to 2 minutes and the road network will be able to cater for the additional traffic.

 

The site is located next to several bus stops which carry a variety of buses to the City centre and the surrounds. Its also within close proximity to the beach which has a substantial amount of public car parking (a recent initiative and part of the beach upgrade).

 

The proposed car parking, access and traffic arrangements are considered to be satisfactory. A condition will require the development to comply with Australian standards AS 2890.1 – AS 2890-2 – 1989.

 

9.12     Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area identified in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed development complies with the objectives and provisions of Clause 29 of the LEP which relates to development located within the foreshore. The design of the development and the proposed use of external materials are aimed to compliment the natural environment surrounding the site, namely the beach and adjoining headland.

 

The proposal aims to maintain and enhance the natural, environmental and visual qualities of the foreshore. For example the proposed area of public open space at the rear will incorporate plants native to the area. Also natural building materials such as timber and sandstone and incorporates natural colours to reflect the immediate environment. A condition on the consent will require the incorporation of materials that are of the highest quality to ensure their longevity and durability in a harsh coastal environment.

 

9     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is a new contemporary development which incorporates the refurbishment of the existing Maroubra Beach Hotel which is currently classified as a Heritage Item. The proposed new building work incorporates two new residential wings comprising of a total of 50 new residential apartments. It also involves the upgrade of the existing ground floor hotel (including a new extension to this use) and three new retail tenancies.

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Interim Design Review Panel for comment in respect to the provisions of SEPP No.65 and to Council’s Heritage Officer. Both consider that subject to some minor conditions the proposed development is well designed and of high quality and would compliment the surrounding area and set a high standard of development.

 

The amended plans have reduced the height, scale and floor space  by removing the sixth (top floor level). The result is an improved design which creates a development that is more integral with its surrounds. Despite the proposal’s non-compliance with both the height, FSR and setback controls the development is located in a prominent location and the additional height and floor space will not create any undue or adverse amenity impacts in relation to privacy or overshadowing. The overall height of the development is consistent with developments in the immediate streetscape and surrounds and will not establish an undesirable precedent. The proposal creates active street frontages and encourages the opening up of this area to become an important and focal point of the beachside. The development complies with the objectives and intentions of the DCP for the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre and complies with DCP in respect to car parking. As such the SEPP No.1 objections in relation to height and floor space should be supported in the circumstances of the case being the unique and special qualities the site has including its prominent corner location, its close proximity to the beach and its historic importance which will be maintained and enhanced.

 

The proposal complies with the main objectives of the LEP in relation to 3B zone and in respect to Clause 29 relating to development in a foreshore scenic protection area.

 

The proposed development is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to the non-compliance with Clause 32 and 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to floor space and height) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality as follows, and that Planning NSW be advised accordingly:

 

 

B.            THAT the Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.974/2002 for the redevelopment of the existing Maroubra Bay Hotel to include a new residential development which includes a total of 50 new dwellings, 3 new ground floor retail tenancies and the expansion of the Hotel and associated car parking at No.178-182 Marine Parade, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1.         The applicant shall submit for approval, and have approved, a landscape design and associated documentation for the Marine Parade and McKeon Street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Beach Upgrade. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins, landscaping and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect (9399 0786).

 

The landscape designs shall include the following information, (as a minimum):

 

·    Proposed step and footpath design, (including provision for disabled access), along the Marine Parade and McKeon Street frontages, (with levels to AHD). Handrails shall be shown where appropriate, (stainless steel handrails).

 

·    Driveway location for the carpark entrance

·    The proposed kerb design/redesign along the Marine Parade & McKeon St site frontage (showing top of kerb levels to AHD).

·    Location, size and type of garden beds, tree grates/trees, bus shelters, litter bins, lighting.

·    Proposed point of discharge of development site stormwater from the silt arrestor pits to Council’s kerb and gutter showing AHD levels.

·    The proposed location of regupol paving (or similar) along the McKeon St frontage as required to make provision for keg deliveries to the Hotel and relevant loading zone signposting for brewery trucks.

 

Approximate costing for the proposed works along the both the Marine Parade & Mckeon St frontages.

 

2.         The applicant shall either raise the floor level of the proposed hotel extension to RL 6.65 metres AHD or alternatively all openings leading to the hotel extension shall be suitably protected from stormwater inundation up to a level of 6.65metres AHD. Amended details demonstrating compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to Council.

 

3.         A detailed sample board of the proposed colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of the proposed new building work (including paint schemes) and for the existing Hotel and shall be submitted to Council. Details of the façade treatment and detailing of the existing Hotel shall be provided.

 

4.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building should 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 Community Development. The materials chosen should reflect the nature of the area and should consider durability and longevity since the area is prone to harsh coastal conditions. The exposed nature of the site should incoporate materials and colours that are hard wearing and durable.

 

5.         The applicant shall either submit to Council suitable documentary evidence that the owners of the land adjacent to the development site containing the two (2) Coprosma repens (Mirror Bushes) have given their consent to the removal of the subject trees or alternatively redesign a portion of the development to ensure the long term health and stability of the trees.

 

6.         The applicant shall submit to Council for approval, and have approved, an amended detail for the proposed loading bay and the affected section of internal driveway as required to make adequate provision for a medium sized rigid truck to enter/exit the proposed loading bay. The height clearance at all points along the swept path for the medium rigid truck shall be a minimum of 3.6metres.

 

7.         The upper level units shall include some form of interior or exterior retractable awnings to act as a shading device and method of protection from the elements. If exterior awnings are proposed these should not extend further than 1.5m from the outer wall. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

8.         Privacy screening proposed to all balconies of residential units shall be constructed of light weight louvred materials and shall be fixed. Screening to the southern side of balconies to dwellings No.s G05, 413 and 423 are to be constructed of opaque, glazed or transluscent materials so as not to detract from the openness of the octagonal section of the hotel’s northern elevation. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

9.         The proposed roof materials are to have a finish which will minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered AR DA 0-01, 2-01, 2-02, 2-03, 2-04, 2-05, 2-06, 2-07, 2-08, 2-09, 5-01, 5-02, 5-03, 5-04, 5-10, 5-11, 6-01, 6-02,  dated 10 October 2002, and the Shadow diagrams dated 11/10/02, Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Otto Cserhalmi and partners dated October 2002, Traffic Report prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes dated October 2002, Landscape plans prepared by Oculus  and dated October 2002 and the Statement of Environmental Effects dated October 2002 and received by Council on 14 October 2002 and as amended by the plans submitted on the 29 January 2003 and further details submitted on the 28 March 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY

 

2.         Details of any proposed ground floor awning (materials, height, size and colour) above the existing Hotel, and above the retail tenancies along Marine Parade and new portion of the hotel along McKeon Street are to be provided to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage Officer prior to the lodgement of the Construction Certificate. The awning above the existing Hotel should reflect the original awning structure and any new awnings should compliment this one in terms of design, colours and scale. The size of all awnings shall also be provided.

 

3.         Access to the communal landscaped courtyard at the rear shall only be utilised by the owners, tenants and their visitors of the residential units. People using the hotel or retail tenancies are not to be given access to this space. Signage should be incorporated within the development to delinate private and public areas. Details of the location of all internal signage shall be submitted prior to the lodgement of the Construction certificate and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Services.

 

4.         The exit/accessway at the rear of the new hotel leading to the car park and loading dock shall only be used in emergencies and for deliveries.

 

5.         All entries and exits into and through to the residential components of the development shall only be accessed via a security intercom system. Plans providing details of the location and type of security systems to be installed for;

 

·    Residential entries

·    Lifts

·    Retail shops

·    Hotel

 

shall be submitted prior to the lodgement of the Construction Certificate and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

6.         Any proposed entertainment activities in conjunction with the Hotel use will require a separate development application.

 

7.         All proposed new balcony railings shall be constructed of glass.

 

8.         Any proposed awnings to the residential units shall not project over the public roadway or footpath.

 

9.         All new doors and windows to the residential development including openings to the retail areas and hotel shall be double glazed to minimise noise penetration.

 

10.       If bi-fold or sliding doors are proposed to the hotel component these shall be closed at 10pm daily and shall not be opened earlier than 9am.

 

11.       The overall height of the building must not exceed RL 21.55 and the internal floor to ceiling levels of the new residential sections shall not exceed 2.7m.

 

12.       The floor space ratio of the whole development (including the floor space of the Hotel) shall not exceed 2.85:1 and documentary evidence of compliance, prepared by a registered surveyor is required to be submitted to the principal certify authority prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

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

 

14.       All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rain water heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

15.       Street numbering and any signs relating to the name of the development and Hotel must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, preferably above the entry and shall be to the satisfaction of Council. Details of the type, size and location of the identification signs shall be submitted to Council prior to the lodgement of the Construction certificate. Access to and from the car parking area and location of the loading dock should be clearly marked. Any proposed advertising signs will require separate development consent.

 

16.       Any proposed enclosure of balconies will require separate development consent.

 

17.       Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

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

 

19.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.. All windows and glass doors to the development (including those to the retail and hotel components) shall be installed to include double glazing in order to minimise noise distribution and contain noise internally. The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

21.       The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

22.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.       A separate development application will require to be lodged for the subdivision of the property.

 

26.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au  then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

 

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

 

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

 

CONSERVATION/HERITAGE:

The following conditions are applied to maintain the heritage significance and amenity of the premises and locality:

 

27.       A detailed Conservation Plan (outlining the short and long term proposed conservation and restoration works) must be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.  This Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced architect. The Plan must be submitted and approve by the Director of Planning and Environment, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior the lodgement of the construction certificate and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

28.       A costed maintenance plan and schedule of the work relating the conservation restoration works outlined in the Conservation Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to the lodgement of the Construction certificate This plan should also be provided as part of the contract for the sale of the development.

 

The conservation policies and maintenance program outlined in the approved Conservation Plan must be adopted and the recommendation implemented.

 

An architect qualified and experienced in heritage conservation must oversee the implementation of the approved Conservation Plan on an ongoing basis.

 

29.       Three (3) copies of an archival recording of the property must be prepared and be submitted to, and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development, 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.  This recording must be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Officer.

 

30.       A positive covenant shall be created under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act to ensure that a specific sinking fund is established and allocated for the renovation and future building works associated with the Hotel. These are to be in accordance with the proposed Conservation Plan and Maintenance Schedule. Such covenant shall not be revoked or modified without prior approval of Council. The covenant shall be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

31.       Vehicular access to the residential, commercial and hotel car parking within the development shall be readily accessible to visitors at all times. Where a security gate is provided restricting access to the basement carparking area, a suitable intercom system shall be installed adjacent to the vehicular entrance together with appropriate instructions signage to provide for access to visitor spaces at all times

 

SECTION 94:

 

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

 

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

 

a) for the provision or improvement of open space             $75,044.71

b) for the provision or improvement of community facilities $33,181.74

c) for townscape improvements                                                     $14,180.00

d) Administration fee $425.00                                                       $     425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to

 

a)  the lodgement of a construction certificate.

 

for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for vehicular access, parking and public infrastructure:

 

33.       All crossings, repairs and ancillary works on the footway and roadway are to be carried out by the Council and the cost borne by the applicant.

 

34.       All crossings, repairs and ancillary works on the footway and roadway are to be carried out by the Council and the cost borne by the applicant.  A statement, prepared by the applicant or owner of the premises is to be obtained and submitted to the Council, detailing the condition and status of the roadway, footway, vehicular crossings, nature strip and public place adjacent to the premises, prior to the commencement of any works on the site and also upon completion of the works.

 

The statement is to include details of any existing damage to the roadway, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or public place prior to the commencement of works and details of any damage caused to the roadway, footway, vehicular crossings, nature strip or public place, as a result of the works or any associated building activities, for assessment and determination by Council.

 

35.       The car parking proposed shall be configured and spaces and areas shall be clearly marked in accordance with the following allocation:

(a)        A minimum of 4 spaces shall be allocated to the retail tenancies

(b)        A minimum of 14 spaces shall be designated as visitor car parking and shall be clearly marked and located adjacent to the entry to the basement.

(c)        A minimum of 1 disabled car parking space shall be provided and sited adjacent to the entry to the basement or alternatively near an accessway  providing access to the hotel, retail and residential areas for a disabled person.

(d)        A minimum of 4 spaces should be allocated to the hotel use.

(e)        The remaining spaces (approx 64) shall be allocated to the residential units.

 

Details of compliance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to the lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

36.       The gradient of the vehicular access driveway must be designed and constructed to match the issued alignment levels at the property boundary.

           

37.       Levels of driveways, pathways, fences and any other construction works on or near the street alignment must be designed to match the design alignment levels as designated by the Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, details of which are available from Council upon request.

 

38.       A public utility assessment shall be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath and any public place associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements are able to be satisfied, as applicable, shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works.

 

39.       A survey certificate or other documentary evidence, prepared by a Registered Surveyor or the Certifying Authority, is to be obtained prior to pouring concrete to the a) ground floor slab, b) car parking level floor slab, verifying that the building is being constructed in accordance with the Council issued alignment levels at the property boundary and relevant conditions of consent.

 

The survey certificate or other documentary evidence 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.

 

40.       Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

41.       Absorption pits or soaker wells must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

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.

 

Details of stormwater drainage are to be provided in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

42.       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.

 

43.       Site seepage, is to be drained and connected directly into the stormwater disposal system or connected to a suitably designed absorption system.  Site seepage is not to be discharged to the street gutter.

 

Details of any proposed works to be carried out to Council’s drainage system or within the road reserve / footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure prior to commencement of works.

 

44.       Design calculations prepared by a suitably qualified professional engineer, are to be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority for the stormwater drains and gutters prior to the commencement of works, detailing the adequacy of the stormwater disposal system and compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

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

 

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

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

a)   Construct a heavy-duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b)   Reconstruct the McKeon Street and Marine Parade site frontages, (footpaths, kerb and gutter and roadworks), in accordance with the Council approved landscape/streetscape design plans and Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Beach.

 

48.       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.

 

49.       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.

 

50.       A work zone is to be provided in McKeon Street. The ‘workzone’ shall have a minimum length of 12 metres and the prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

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

 

52.       The entrance to the basement carpark is to be suitably signposted stating that the loading dock is only designed to cater for trucks up to the size of a medium rigid truck. The signage should also indicate the maximum clearance of 3.6metres. Details of the signage shall be submitted for approval with the construction certificate application.

 

53.       The aisle widths, internal circulation, ramp widths and grades of the carpark are to generally conform to the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) guidelines, Australian Standard AS 2980.1 –1993 and Council’s Development Control Plan - Parking. Details of compliance are to be shown on the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certificate, and are required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

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

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

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

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

56.       The alignment level along the Marine Parade frontage shall be issued by Council following submission to, and approval by Council of the Marine Parade frontage landscape design. The construction certificate plans shall show the approved alignment levels.

 

57.       The alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,520.00 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

58.       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.

 

59.       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.

 

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

 

61.       Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

62.       The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located in McKeon Street, (fronting the development site), to be relaid underground. The works shall be in accordance with Energy Australia requirements and the cost of removing any redundant poles shall be met by the applicant. The undergrounding of the power lines shall be undertaken prior to any footpath construction works in either Marine Parade or McKeon Street.

 

63.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

 

Drainage Conditions

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