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

 

20 June 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, 24TH JUNE, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH MAY, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Acting General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 14/2003 - 2003/06 DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET.

2

 

6.2                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 15/2003 - ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF.

11

 

6.3                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 16/2003 - BALI REPORT.

13

 

 

7           Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES’ REPORT 27/2003 - TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - VIOLATION AT INGLIS STABLES, RANDWICK.

17

 

7.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES’ REPORT 28/2003 - PROPOSED ALCOHOL FREE ZONE - SHORT STREET, RANDWICK.

21

 


 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 13/2003 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL – DETERMINATIONS.

25

 

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 42/2003 - 17 GOORAWAHL AVENUE, LA PEROUSE.

27

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 43/2003 - 38 ELAROO AVENUE, PHILLIP BAY.

38

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 44/2003 - 34-36 PARK AVENUE, CLOVELLY.

57

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 45/2003 - VILLA 3, 61 HIGH STREET, PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL RANDWICK.

68

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 46/2003 - MASTER PLAN FOR 495-503 BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

87

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Kerb, Guttering and Footpath for Moorina Ave, Matraville.

144

11.2

By Councillor Matson – Incorporation of Judge Street into Randwick Parking Study Management Strategy Plan.

144

11.3

By Councillor Matson – Refurbishment of South Maroubra Village Green. 

144

11.4

By Councillor Matson – Opposition to Federal Government Legislative Initiatives on UNSW Unionism.

144

11.5

By Councillor Matson – Side Door at 22A Pauling Avenue, Coogee.

144

11.6

By Councillor Matson – Deregulation of UNSW Student Fees.

144

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 47/2003 - 2-6 BREAM STREET, COOGEE - CALTEX SERVICE STATION TRADING AS FREEDOM FUEL.

145

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

……………………………………….

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER.

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 14/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003/06 DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

 

 

DATE:

16 June, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S0555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 29 April 2003, it was resolved that the 2003/06 Draft Management Plan be placed on public exhibition from 30 April to 29 May 2003. Submissions were invited from the public and an advertisement was placed in the Mayoral column of the Southern Courier on 30 April and 6 May 2003. Copies were placed at the three libraries and the Customer Service Centre. A copy was also placed on Council’s website.

 

Council is required to adopt the Management Plan after consideration of any submissions from the public.

 

ISSUES:

 

One external submission was received. The submission was from The Spot Precinct Committee.

 

Submission 1. Attachment 3 Precinct Funding. The Committee requests that funding be allocated to the operational costs of Precincts. This submission addressed the expenditure of the 2002/2003 budget with the Precinct Committee requesting that funds be made available to the Precinct from any unspent salary allocation for the Community Liaison Officer.

 

However, although the submission as such was not directly relevant to the 2003/2004 Management Plan and Budget consideration was still given to the request.  Currently Council supports Precinct Committees by undertaking required printing, printing and distributing copies of Council and Committee Business Papers and photocopying development applications on request. The cost of providing this level of support is higher than restoring the one-off grants but it is considered that this type of support is both more relevant and more equitable.

 

Council will continue to work with the Precinct Committees to maximise the effectiveness of the support provided but at this stage a direct grant with the expectation that the Committee then takes responsibility for its own printing and other costs appears to be a less effective level of support

 

Recommendation.   That the annual grant not be restored to the Precinct Committees and that Council continue to provide specific support.

 

Submission 2.  Fees and Charges. (Attachment 2). Staff have identified several proposed changes to the Fees and Charges.

 

a)   Registration of Certificates. Page 42. Registration is required by law, and it is intended that the principle of full cost recovery be used to set the fee. It is proposed to increase the fee for (i) Class 1 or class 10 buildings from $35.00 to $45.00 and for (ii) Class 2 to class 9 buildings from $50.00 to $70.00. These fees will still only allow for partial recovery of the full cost of providing the service.

 

b)   Section 603 Certificates. Page 58. The Minister has determined that the fee will be $50.00 per service. Attachment 5. In order to maintain relativity it is proposed to amend the fee for an urgent s603 Certificate to $60.00.

 

c)   Footpath Restoration. Page 15. New fee. Lost or damaged pavers. It is proposed that a fee of $75.00 per sq metre be charged when the existing pavers are damaged or missing.

 

Recommendation. The Fees and Charges is amended to allow for Registration of Certificates for Class1 & class10 buildings of $45.00 and Class 2 to 9 buildings of $70.00, Section 603 certificates of $50.00 and urgent Section 603 certificates of $60.00, and Footpath Restoration – lost or damaged pavers of $70.00 per sq metre.

 

Submission 3 Confidential Fees and Charges. Pursuant to the provisions of s404(5), the  list of Fees and Charges does not need to include information which could confer a commercial advantage to a competitor of the Council. A separate list of confidential fees and charges has been prepared and is attached as a confidential item. Attachment 6.

 

Recommendation. That the Fees and Charges are amended to allow for the confidential charges for the Building Certification Services Unit.

 

Submission 4 Capital Works Programme. Since the Draft Capital Works Programme was placed on public exhibition, there are several projects that have been identified and are proposed to be included in the 03-04 Budget.

 

a)   Bali Memorial project.  The total cost of the memorial is estimated at $135,000.  $100,000 has been allocated in the current 02/03 Budget however the shortfall of $35,000 is unfunded. It is important that the project is fully funded and it is proposed that the source of funding is from the Councillor Bids.

 

b)   Storey St Traffic Calming. This project was adopted by Council in the 2002/03 Budget however it has not commenced and the funding allocation will lapse at 30 June 2003 and be returned to Reserves. The total cost is $60,000. It is proposed to add this project to the 2003/04 Capital Works Programme and source the funding from Reserves.

 

Recommendation   Allocate an additional $35,000 to the Bali Memorial project, and reduce the Councillor Bid vote by this amount. Allocate $60,000 from Reserves to the Storey St Traffic Calming project.

 

General Income Attachment 4. DLG Circular 03/07. The Draft Budget was based on the assumption of a total increase of 3% to General Income. The Minister has since announced that the 2003/04 permissible increase in General Income for Randwick Council is 3.662%.

 

This will increase the gross yield from Rates by $144,608. The new ad valorem rate for the ordinary Residential rate is 0.28941, and for the ordinary Business rate is 1.15077. It is proposed to allocate the additional Revenue to the Councils Online project.

 

Recommendation. Amend the ad valorem rates and increase the budget for the Councils Online project by $144,608.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The submissions received on the Management Plan have been considered and the appropriate recommendations have been made.

 

The Minister for Local Government has already advised that the permissible increase to General Income is 3.662%. The Draft Budget is based on an increase of 3%. It is proposed to adopt the 3.662% increase, amend ad valorem rates and allocate the additional revenue to the Councils Online project.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 1.            That the Draft Fees and Charges be amended to allow for Registration of Certificates for Class1 & 10 buildings of $45.00 and Class 2 to 9 buildings of $70.00, Section 603 certificates of $50.00 and urgent Section 603 certificates of $60.00, and Footpath Restoration – lost or damaged pavers of $70.00 per sq metre.

 

2.         That the Fees and Charges be amended to include the new confidential fees of the Building Certification Services Unit.

 

3.         That the Draft Fees & Charges and the Confidential Fees and Charges, as amended, be adopted for 2003/04.

 

4.         That the permissible increase to General Income of 3.662% is adopted.

 

5.         That the increase in general income of $144,608 is allocated to the Councils Online project and the Draft Budget 2003/04 be amended.

 

6.         That the additional Capital Works projects of the Bali Memorial project receive an additional $35,000 and this be funded by reducing the Councillor Bid vote by this amount, and to allocate $60,000 from Reserves to the Storey St Traffic Calming project, and that the Draft Budget be amended.

 

7.         That the Draft Budget 2003/04 as amended, be adopted as the Budget for 2003/04, and that funds be voted accordingly.

 

8.         That the interest rate on overdue rates be calculated at 9% per annum, and charged daily, in accordance with the determination under s566 (3) (Local Government Act 1993) by the Minister for Local Government.

 

9.         That the Draft Management Plan 2003/06 as amended, be adopted as the Management Plan for 2003/06 under s406 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

10.       That the Ordinary Residential Rate be made and levied by Council for 2003/04, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.28941 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Residential land.

 

11.       That the Ordinary Business Rate be made and levied by Council for 2003/04, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 1.15077 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Business land.

 

12.       That the minimum ordinary Residential rate be made and levied in 2003/04 under s548 (1)(a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $451.00.

 

13.       That the minimum ordinary Business rate be made and levied in 2003/04 under s548 (1)(a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $726.50

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. DRAFT 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN (Under Separate cover)

2. DRAFT 2003/04 FEES & CHARGES (Under Separate cover)

3. Submission from the Spot Precinct Committee

4. DLG Circular 03/07 Variation of General Income 03/04

5. DLG Circular 03/04 Maximum Interest Rate 03/04

6. Draft Confidential List of Fees and Charges (Under Separate Cover)   

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 







 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 15/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF

 

 

DATE:

18 June, 2003

FILE NO:

Personnel

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act, 1993 states:

 

“The General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the Council on contractual conditions of senior staff”.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The following is provided for the information of Councillors in accordance with Section 339 of the Act:

 

 

Position Title

Occupant

Total Remuneration Package as at 30 June 2003

General Manager

Mr Gordon Messiter

$233,998.25pa

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services

 

Mr Michael Savage

 

$159,027.68pa

Director Planning & Community Development

 

Mr Bill O’Brien

1/7/02 to 8/07/02

Vacant

Sima Truuvert – Acting to date

 

 

$136,350pa

 

$136,350pa

 

Director Governance Management & Information Services

 

 

Mr Mark Hummerston

 

$136,350pa

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Acting General Manager’s Report No.15/03 entitled “Annual reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff” be received and noted.       

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 16/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

BALI REPORT

 

 

DATE:

19 June, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4889

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 13th May 2003, Council considered Mayoral Minute 28/2003 dealing with the commissioning of a public artwork / sculpture commemorating the 12 month anniversary of the Bali incident.  Council’s resolution  stated in part:

 

“2.       Council authorises the process of engagement of an artist to design and implement a public art / sculpture commemorating the 12-month anniversary of the Bali incident through a select request for Quotation.”

 

In  completing the detailed Commissioning Brief  it was established that with the inclusion of GST the Artist Fee would be $22,000 (not $20,000) and the Production Budget would be $88,000 (not $80,000).  The total budget would therefore be $110,000 including GST.  An expected budget of this size would require that Council comply with the Tendering Procedures contained in Section 55 of the Local Government Act.

 

ISSUES:

 

Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires that Council invite public tenders prior to entering into a contract for works costing in excess of $100,000.  The Manager Purchasing and Contracts has confirmed that in assessing this limit estimated costings must include GST.

 

In the normal course of business Council would satisfy these requirements by either calling public tenders or inviting expressions of interest prior to inviting tenders from a list of selected tenderers.  Either of these options would add at least an additional five weeks to the process having regard to the requirement to advertise for 21 days. Having regard to the timetable which has been developed (See Attachment 1)  it would not be possible to meet the October 12th deadline if an additional five week delay were introduced.

 

 

Exceptions

 

Clause 55(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, provides a list of exceptions to the tendering requirements.  One of these exceptions is:

 

“a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution (which states the reason for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.”

 

Council’s intention is not to avoid a competitive bidding situation but to meet a stringent time constraint which cannot be varied.  In addition, the nature of the project is different to that normally the subject of the tendering process.  The usual process followed by Council is to prepare a design either in-house or employing a consultant and then to call tenders for construction in accordance with that design.

 

In the current case Council is not able to follow this process because of the artistic component of the project.  Council has invited seven artists / architects / designers to each prepare a design in accordance with Council’s brief.  It is proposed that one of these designs will be selected and that the designer will be commissioned to fabricate and install the work.  It is not feasible to tender the fabrication / installation of the designed work because of  the need for artistic input from the designer and the question of ownership of intellectual property relating to the memorial work.

 

It would have been possible to carry out this entire process as a public tender had not the stringent time constraint existed.  The time involved would have been much greater as the selection process would have involved the assessment of a larger number of more divergent proposals.  In addition, there is a significant risk that no suitable design may have resulted from such a process.

 

 

Other Considerations

 

Council does not have expertise available to manage the artistic aspects of  this project.  This aspect is being managed by the appointment of an experienced art curator.  This has ensured that designers having experience in the commissioning of public art of a similar nature to that being sought by Council have been approached to provide design proposals.  This is essential if the October 12th deadline is to be met.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The circumstances surrounding this process have been discussed with a representative from the Legal Section of the Department of Local Government who advised that a resolution of Council as discussed above would be an appropriate course of action to take.

 

In summary, the extenuating circumstances applicable to the commissioning of a memorial to the victims of the Bali bombings are:

 

a)         The sensitivities surrounding the project and the public expectation a memorial will be constructed in memory of those killed and injured by the first anniversary of the Bali terrorist attack

b)         The severe time constraints , in that the project must be completed by 12th October 2003, the first anniversary of the Bali bombing

c)         An independent art curator has been employed to select seven designers with appropriate experience in commissioning public art to ensure that the time constraints are met

d)         Selection of the successful designer will be made by an independent selection panel containing representatives of the Bali victims’ families.

 

Having regard to these factors a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders strictly in accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That having regard to:

 

a)   The sensitivities surrounding the project and the public expectation a memorial will be constructed in memory of those killed and injured by the first anniversary of the Bali terrorist attack

b)   The severe time constraints , in that the project must be completed by 12th October 2003, the first anniversary of the Bali bombing

c)   An independent art curator has been employed to select seven designers with appropriate experience in commissioning public art to ensure that the time constraints are met

d)   Selection of the successful designer will be made by an independent selection panel containing representatives of the Bali victims’ families.

 

a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the commissioning of a memorial to the victims of the Bali bombings.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Excerpt from "The Commissioning Brief - Memorial to the Victims of the Bali Bombings"

 

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 



 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 27/2003

 

SUBJECT:

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - VIOLATION AT INGLIS STABLES, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

19 June, 2003

FILE NO:

P/002779

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 5 May, 2003, Council tree management officers were called to investigate a possible breach of Council’s Tree Preservation Order taking place within the Inglis Stables in Jane Street, Randwick.

 

Upon arrival, those officers attempted to clarify whether the tree trimmers undertaking the works were aware of Council’s Tree Preservation Order and if they had approval to remove the subject trees.

 

The principal advised that he had been instructed by Mr Reg Inglis to remove four Eucalyptus species from the property. He advised those officers that he had not seen written approval for the works but that he assumed stable management had sought and obtained such approval.

 

ISSUES:

 

The trees concerned were in the vicinity of fifteen metres in height with canopy spreads of between six-eight metres - although this was difficult to prove conclusively in relation to the two trees that had been cut down when Council officers initially arrived on-site.

 

Even so, they were certainly of a size and species that would have been covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and several neighbouring property owners have demanded that Council take action against the persons responsible for their removal.

 

It has been established that all four trees were planted between 1985 and 1987 and anecdotal evidence indicates that they had been heavily pruned in the past on at least two occasions without Council approval.

 

The owners of the property are more than aware of the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order and there has never been any mention made to Council about any safety concerns relating to the subject trees.

 

The subject trees would have been an important provider of habitat and food source for birdlife and other fauna and the issue of safety was not mentioned by the tree trimming contractor when he was asked about the reasons for removal.

 

One of the two remaining trees that had not been cut down was almost entirely ring-barked with borer infestation and inspecting Council officers did consider that this tree constituted a legitimate safety concern.

 

The tree trimming contractor was advised that he could remove this particular tree but he was also instructed not to touch the remaining Gum tree until advised by Council.

 

On the morning of 6 May, 2003, Council’s Tree Management Officer spoke to Mr Reg Inglis about this matter and asked whether he had Council approval to remove the subject trees and to explain exactly why they had been removed.

 

Mr Inglis informed that officer that they had been dropping branches and leaves had been blocking drains, etc, and that they were now a serious safety concern not only for persons but also their very expensive equestrian bloodstock.

 

Mr Inglis was subsequently asked to send a letter to Council detailing exactly what his concerns were and why the trees were removed and that correspondence is attached.

 

Also attached is a letter dated 24 April, 2003, that was sent to Mr Inglis by Mr T Williams, of the Randwick Equine Centre, in which Mr Williams alludes to the fact that he considered the four subject trees to be dangerous and that they should be replaced with a more suitable tree species.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The initial inspection of the trees that were illegally removed from within the Newmarket property on 5 May, 2003, indicated that only one of those trees was suffering from any sort of serious insect attack and there appeared to be no evidence of branches having recently either fallen or snapped from within the canopies of any of the trees.

 

Photographs taken at the time also show the two trees that had been removed to be healthy and suffering no signs of disease or decay.

 

Mr Inglis has subsequently written to Council (5 June, 2003) requesting leniency in this matter and bringing to Council’s attention a number of points he considers to be mitigating.

 

He states that the trees in question were a danger and that large branches had previously fallen on the yards below.

 

When the tree trimming contractor was asked if the felled trees had a history of falling branches he stated that he was not aware that this was an issue.

 

Council records do not indicate that there has ever been any notification that this was an issue and inspecting tree management officers could see no evidence of fallen branches or stubs where branches might have fallen.

 

Even if this were an issue, the correct procedure would have been to make application to Council to remove affected trees under the provisions of its Tree Preservation Order.

 

Mr Inglis then offers the view that ‘these trees are not in keeping with other trees in the area” and that they were “inappropriate because they grow to an enormous size”.

 

I would suggest that this is an assessment that should be made by an appropriate Council officer and that one of the main reasons that most councils have Tree Preservation Orders is to stop the indiscriminate felling of large trees.

 

These trees are Australian native species and as such provide an important but diminishing food supply and habitat for native birdlife and other fauna.

 

Mr Inglis makes the point that “one of the trees had borers and was in danger of falling down”. This is not in dispute and in fact inspecting officers instructed the tree trimming contractors to remove this particular tree because they recognised that it posed a risk.

 

However, this was the only tree that showed any signs of disease or decay and it should not detract from the fact that the necessary compliance procedures were not adhered to.

 

Mr Inglis also advises that Council had given permission to remove a number of healthy trees some years ago to allow for the replacement of one of their stable blocks.

 

The decision to remove those trees was regrettable and one of the mitigating factors in allowing their removal was the fact that the four trees referred to in this situation were growing within the immediate area and were not affected by that proposal.

 

Mr Inglis has admitted to a breach of Council’s Tree Preservation Order and has expressed regret for that act. He has asked that Council show leniency in this matter and he intends to replace the trees that have been removed with trees which are conducive to the site and surrounding area.

 

The removal of these three mature Eucalyptus species, for whatever reason, without the required consent for Council constitutes a serious and flagrant breach of its Tree Preservation Order.

 

Council’s Tree Management Officer considers that at the very least the owners of Newmarket Stables should be required to replace the trees that have been removed with an appropriate number of super advanced native tree species, the number of species to be decided by an appropriate Council officer.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.   The owners of the Newmarket Stables be advised that any  trimming or removal of relevant trees is regarded as a serious breach of Council’s Tree Preservation Order and any such action without Council approval will in future result in court action being taken against them.

 

2.   The owners of Newmarket Stables shall replace the trees that have been removed with an appropriate number of super advanced native tree species  - the number and species being determined by Council’s Tree Management Officer.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

BRYAN BOURKE

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 28/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED ALCOHOL FREE ZONE - SHORT STREET, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

19 June, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1285

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In response to recent alcohol related incidents, Council has received a written application copy of which is attached, from Sgt John Dodson of Maroubra Police Station, requesting the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone around ‘Timezone’ in Short Street, Randwick.

 

ISSUES

 

In accordance with Section 644 of the Local Government Act, an Alcohol Free Zone  (AFZ) can operate for a period of up to three years and may be created on public footpaths, roadways and carparks.

 

Sgt Dodson has proposed an AFZ in the Randwick Shopping Centre to include,

 

·    Both sides of Short Street from Belmore Road to Avoca Street, and

·    The western side of Avoca Street from the corner of Avoca Street and Belmore Road to the pedestrian entrance of the Royal Randwick Shopping Centre.

 

A detailed public consultation process must first be undertaken before an AFZ can be established. This process includes advertising the proposal in the local newspaper as well as notifying organizations and any other relevant parties as required by the Act.

 

Upon completion of the consultation period and depending on the level of objections received, Council may resolve to create an AFZ. Once all organisations originally notified as part of the public consultation have been advised of Council’s resolution, Council may erect signposting after which Police enforcement is possible.

 

A Council resolution effectively creates the zone, however, the Police cannot enforce the zone until it is adequately signposted at its outer limits and at specific trouble spots.

 

There are currently six (6) Alcohol Free Zones in the City of Randwick and in order to save confusion over termination dates, it is proposed that any new zones should run concurrently with existing zones and as such have a common expiry date of 18th October 2005.

 

It should be noted that an AFZ does not interfere with the operation of a cafe or restaurant with an outdoor dining licence . The purpose of an AFZ is to address anti-social type behaviour.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As evidenced by their application, the Police support the creation of this zone as it would provide them with an effective way of deterring and controlling alcohol related anti-social type behaviour in the area.

 

It is considered that Council should support this application and carry out the required consultation to establish this AFZ.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)   That Council support Maroubra Police’s application to create an Alcohol Free Zone in Short Street both sides, from Belmore Road to Avoca Street, and Avoca Street west side from the intersection of Belmore Road to pedestrian entrance to Randwick Village.

2)   That the public consultation process be undertaken in order to properly establish the Alcohol Free Zone in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Alcohol Free Zone application form

Sketch   

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

FRANK ROTTA

DAVID MEREDITH

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN

 

 

 




 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 13/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - DETERMINATIONS

 

 

DATE:

17 June, 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 42/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

17 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

 

 

DATE:

12 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0276/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. 276/2003 for new double garage with trafficable roof, front fence and works in the front building line at 17 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 11 June 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

11 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D0276/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 New double garage with trafficable roof, front fence and works in the front building line

PROPERTY:

 17 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 L.Patterson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for consideration by Councillors White, Daley and Sullivan.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to extend the existing single garage to a double garage, forward of the building line at 17 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse. A new terrace and balustrading is proposed above the garage. A new front fence and stairs providing access to the new terrace and existing veranda from the front and rear of the property are also proposed. The estimated cost of development is $30,000.

 

The application was lodged on 4 April 2003. Notification did not result in any submissions, however the proposal does not meet the driveway and garaging controls stipulated under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP and does not meets character and streetscape objectives of the DCP. There is little precedent for this type of development in Goorawahl Avenue and a similar application was refused in August 2000. A subsequent section 82A review of this decision upheld the recommendation for refusal.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to extend the existing single garage to a double garage. The garage is to be constructed in rendered brickwork with a trafficable roof slab. Open style balustrading is proposed to the garage, to match the proposed front fence that will also be constructed of a rendered brickwork base with open style fencing above. A new paved pathway and stairs to the existing elevated front veranda are proposed, along with stairs from the veranda to the new terrace above the garage. An additional set of stairs at the side of the dwelling will provide access to both the veranda and the garage (at natural ground level).

 

A retaining wall and two stairs are also proposed to Council’s naturestrip (adjoining the site boundary) and an extended, double width concrete driveway is also proposed.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse. It is an irregular shaped allotment having a frontage of 12.895m, maximum depth of 31.98m and a site area of 372.2m2. The subject property consists of an existing double storey dwelling with a single detached garage at the front of the property. Goorawahl Avenue consists of a generally open streetscape with an existing double garage forward of the building line at the adjoining property, constructed prior to Council’s current controls. Recent development in the street provides single garages set behind the front building line or below street level. Paved laybacks in Council’s naturestrip have been provided to allow for parking as the width, gradient and layout of Goorawahl Street make on-street parking difficult.

 

 

 


 


4.   

SITE HISTORY

 

Alterations and additions were approved to the dwelling in 1980.

 

A Development Application (534/2000) to demolish the existing garage and construct a double garage with roof terrace was refused under delegated authority on 25 August 2000. Reasons for refusal were based on the width and resulting visual intrusion of the garage structure which did not meet Council’s preferred solutions nor the performance requirements under section 4.7 of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. The proposal, if approved, was also noted as introducing an undesirable precedent in the street.

 

The applicant lodged a request for a review of the determination under section 82A of the Act on 21 September 2000. The review confirmed Council’s original decision to refuse the application on 8 January 2001.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified to adjoining neighbours from April 14 to April 30, 2003 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. In response to this notification no submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Director Assets and Infrastructure

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Civil Comments

The construction and materials of the proposed retaining wall is to be to the satisfaction of the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

Conditions of consent were proposed by the Director AIS, however as the recommendation is for refusal, conditions are not required.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The proposal is not subject to master plan requirements under clause 40A of the RLEP 1998.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA)

 

Clause 29(2) of the LEP states that the consent of Council is required to erect a building within the foreshore scenic protection area (FSPA) which exceeds 5 metres in height. Subsequent clauses require the Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of such buildings from the foreshore before granting consent.

 

The proposed garage and building works are less than five metres in height and do not require consideration of the FSPA under Clause 29 of the LEP. Despite this exclusion the proposal is considered to be visually intrusive and will result in negative impacts on the streetscape of Goorawahl Avenue. The proposal is also considered to create an undesirable precedent in the FSPA. Although the proposal does not have a negative impact on the foreshore in this location, similar development on surrounding sites may result in negative foreshore impacts.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

 

4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

The proposed garage has a nil setback to the northern side boundary. This does not meet the requirement under the DCP (1 metre). The proposed garage uses the existing northern wall and this is not a new non-compliance. The proposed garage provides appropriate dimensions for two spaces. The proposed driveway is between 6 and 8 metres in width and meets Council’s minimum of 3 metres. Driveway gradient details have not been provided but appear to be as existing. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to preferred solution S1 of the DCP.

 

There is no rear lane access to the property and no opportunity to locate parking behind the front building line. The existing single garage does not meet Council’s current controls requiring parking structures to be behind the building alignment. While the existing garage is accepted as predating Council’s current DCP, the new structure exacerbates non-compliance by increasing the width and visual prominence of the structure. The proposal does not meet preferred solution S3 of the DCP.

 

The proposal does not meet preferred solution S4 of the DCP that limits the area of frontage occupied by driveways, parking spaces and structures to 35% of the frontage. The site has a frontage of 12.895 metres. The garage has a width of 6.45 metres. This represents 50% of the site frontage and exceeds Council’s requirement of 35%. The aim of Council’s preferred solution is to ensure that garages do not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape. In Goorawahl Avenue parking structures are not highly visible from the street generally being set back or located below street level. The adjoining dwelling at 19 Goorawahl Avenue has a double garage similar to that proposed at the subject site, however this is an isolated example in the street approved prior to Council’s current controls (25/11/1994). The visual impact of the proposed extension to the width of the garage is significant. The proposal does not meet the preferred solution or the performance requirements of the DCP with regard to streetscape, visual bulk and scale and as such the development cannot be supported in its current form.

 

4.8 Fences

 

The proposed front fencing is 1.4 to 1.5 metres in height and the upper two thirds of the fence is 50% open. This meets the preferred solution for front fencing under the section 4.8 of the DCP.

 

The proposed balustrading to the rooftop terrace proposed over the garage is open style and is 1 metre in height. The open nature of the fencing has reduced bulk and scale impacts, however setting it back from the edge of the garage may further reduce the visibility of the balustrading.

 

The proposal generally complies with Council’s requirements for the height and appearance of fencing.

 

4.9 Foreshore Development

 

As discussed above (section 8(a) the development on the subject site will have little impact on the foreshore. However if approved, the proposal would represent an undesirable precedent that may allow for future development on more prominent foreshore sites. Garage structures on these sites would probably be less than 5 metres in height and therefore would be unlikely to require consideration of Clause 29 of the LEP in any assessment.

 

The proposal would set an undesirable precedent in a foreshore scenic protection area and therefore cannot be supported.

 

b.    Development Control Plan Parking

 

The proposal meets the parking requirement of two spaces. The proposal meets the parking layout and dimensions required under the DCP – Parking. Despite compliance with the numeric requirements of the DCP, the proposal is considered inappropriate with regard to its visual impact on the streetscape.

 

There does not appear to be significant demand for on-street parking in Goorawahl Avenue and paved laybacks have been provided in the generous naturestrip to provide additional parking opportunities. Two car spaces may be able to be achieved within the front setback of the site by providing an uncovered hardstand space adjacent to the existing garage, which should result in a lesser streetscape impact, as allowed under 4.7.2 of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP). This option was discussed with the applicant, however the applicant preferred to proceed with the application as originally lodged.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed garage exceeds Council’s controls under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. The proposal represents an undesirable precedent in the area and is not significantly different from previous, similar proposals for the site that were refused on these grounds. The applicant has not addressed the DCP in the Statement of Environmental Effects and has not significantly amended the proposal in response to Council’s previous reasons for refusal, such that approval would now be warranted.

 

Council’s officers have maintained dialogue with the applicant throughout the assessment process and provided alternative solutions that may result in an appropriate scheme on the site. The applicant has not pursued amendments and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirements and applicable objectives as the garage breaches the predominant building alignment, dominates and detracts from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape and is not compatible in bulk and form with the dwelling and the streetscape. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 276/2003 for new double garage with trafficable roof, front fence and works in the front building line at 17 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse for the following reasons:-

 

1.        The proposal does not meet the relevant preferred design solutions under section 4.7 Garages, carports and driveways under Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as the proposed garage occupies 50% of the width of the site.

 

2.        The proposal does not meet the relevant performance requirements under section 4.7 Garages, carport and driveways under Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as the proposal detracts from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

3.        The proposed garage will constitute a dominant and visually obtrusive element in the streetscape. In this regard the proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirement under section 4.7 Garages, carports and driveways under Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

4.        The current structures forward of the building line at the subject and adjoining properties are not in a form that Council current controls would permit and approval of the proposal will introduce an undesirable precedent for further development on similar properties in the immediate locality and foreshore scenic protection area.

 

5.        The proposal has not met the relevant objectives under section 4.7 Garages, carports and driveways of the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as the proposal is not compatible in bulk and form with the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

6.        The Statement of Environmental Effects lodged with the application does not address the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP or the DCP Parking and does not address Council’s previous concerns in relation to a similar application made in 2000.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 


  

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 43/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

38 Elaroo Avenue, Phillip Bay

 

DATE:

10 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0151/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 13 May 2003 considered a report (attached) regarding Development Application No. 151/2003 for the erection of a garage (with storage space above) and a swimming pool at the front of the existing dwelling house and for modifications to the existing front fence at 38 Elaroo Avenue, Phillip Bay. The application was recommended for refusal on the basis that the proposal essentially involved a lack of soft landscaping, inappropriate siting of the garage/storage building, excessive height and bulk of the garage/storage building and an inappropriately high front fence. The Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 13 May 2003 resolved:

 

“that this application be deferred for one month to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to Council”

 

The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans to Council on 22 May 2003.

 

The amended plans which were submitted to Council on 22 May 2003 have made relatively minor changes to the original proposal. The amended plans have lowered the ridge line of the proposed garage (with storage space above) from 5.9m (measured at the front property boundary) to 5.25m. The amended plans have also reduced the external wall height of the garage (with storage space above) so that the maximum external wall height (measured at the front property boundary) has been reduced from 5.1m to 4.45m. The amended plans have not changed the proposal in any other way. The proposed garage (with storage space above) would be located between the front of the existing dwelling house and the front property boundary.

 

The purpose of this report is to assess the amended plans in accordance with Council’s resolution.

 

ISSUES:

 

The amended plans have not addressed the recommended reasons for refusal which related specifically to: the lack of soft landscaping; the setback of the garage from the street; and the height of the front fence.

 

The amended plans have reduced the height of the ridge line of the proposed garage (with storage space above) by 650mm so as to reduce the height of the ridge line from 5.9m to 5.25m when measured at the front property boundary. The amended plans have reduced the maximum external wall height of the proposed garage (with storage space above) from 5.1m to 4.45m when measured at the front property boundary. The amended plans have not sought to reduce the length of the garage or to increase the setback of the building from the front property boundary. The proposed garage (with storage space above) would be 9.45m long and would be set back 1.5m from the front property boundary.

 

The section of Elaroo Avenue in which the proposed works would be located does not contain garages between the street and front building line. In this context, the proposed garage (with storage space above) would be out of character with the existing pattern of development on Elaroo Avenue and would be a dominant element in the streetscape.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would not comply with the Performance Requirements for ‘Building Setbacks’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the front building setback would not conform with the front setback of the adjoining development or with the dominant setback along the street.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the Performance Requirements for ‘Garages, Carports and Driveways’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the structure would detract from the appearance of the streetscape and would not be compatible in scale with the associated dwelling house.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing detached dwelling house do not comply with the Objectives or Performance Requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan and would result in an adverse impact upon the character of the locality.

 

The proposed works in the front yard would result in approximately only 7% of the site existing as soft landscaped area. The proposed works would be located wholly forward of the front building line. The garage/storage structure and front fence would be excessive in bulk and scale and would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 151/2003 for the erection of a garage (with storage space above) and a swimming pool at the front of the existing dwelling and for modifications to the existing front fence at 38 Elaroo Avenue, Phillip Bay, for the following reasons:-

1.         The proposed swimming pool and garage/storage structure in the front yard would result in approximately only 7% of the site existing as soft landscaping, which does not comply with the Preferred Solution for ‘Landscaping & Open Space’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan that a minimum of 20% of the site has a permeable (soft landscaped) treatment. The proposed works would not meet the Performance Requirements in that unpaved or unsealed areas would not be maximised.

 

2.         The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the Performance Requirements for ‘Building Setbacks’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the front building setback would not conform with the front setback of the adjoining development or with the dominant setback along the street.

 

3.         The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the Performance Requirements for ‘Garages, Carports and Driveways’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the structure would detract from the appearance of the streetscape and would not be compatible in scale with the associated dwelling house.

 

4.         The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the Performance Requirements for ‘Height, Form & Materials’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the structure would not enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street.

 

5.         The application proposes a solid 1.9m high front fence. The proposed front fence would not comply with the Preferred Solutions for ‘Fences’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan that solid front fences in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m and that fences in front of the building line are no higher than 1.8m and are designed so that the upper two-thirds is at least 50% open. The proposed front fence would not meet the Performance Requirements in that the fencing would not be integrated with the streetscape and would not contribute positively to the street character.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report from Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 13 May 2003 for Development Application no. 151/2003.

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON FRENCH

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

23 April, 2003

FILE NO:

03/00151/GB

 

PROPOSAL:

 Erection of garage (with storage space above) and swimming pool at front of existing dwelling and modifications to front fence

PROPERTY:

 38 Elaroo Avenue, Phillip Bay

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr. M. T. Hoskins

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Matthews, Seng and Notley-Smith.

 

The estimated cost of the proposed works is $45,000.00.

 

The application proposes the erection of a garage (with storage space above) and a swimming pool at the front of the existing dwelling and modifications to the existing front fence. The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will have an inappropriate and adverse streetscape impact.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application includes the following elements:

·    A garage (9.45m long and 3.9m wide) forward of the front building line, extending to within 1.5m of the front property boundary. The structure would contain a storage level above the garage itself, such that the Elaroo Avenue elevation would have a maximum external wall height of 5.1m.

·    A 9.45m long section of roof covering a walkway between the proposed garage/storage structure and the south-eastern side boundary.

·    A swimming pool (4.3m wide and up to 8.2m long) forward of the front building line.

·    An increase in the height of the front fence and that section of the north-western side fence forward of the front building line, resulting in a 2m high solid front fence.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Elaroo Avenue, between Tasman Street and Adina Avenue. The site has a frontage to Elaroo Avenue of 12.19m, a rear boundary of 12.19m, side boundaries of 36.58m and an area of 445.91sqm. The site contains a detached, single storey dwelling house. Part of the front yard is hard paved and is used for the parking of motor vehicles. The surrounding locality is largely residential and consists mainly of detached dwelling houses.

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

·                                91/01206/BZ:                                                   New dwelling. Approved 14/01/92.

·                              96/00637/BF: Alterations/first floor addition to dwelling. Approved 20/01/97. (First floor additions have not been carried out.)

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan - Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Surrounding properties were notified of the development application by letter dated 7 March 2003 (for a period of 14 days). 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:-

 

6.1   Engineering Issues

 

Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services (AIS) advises as follows:

 

Landscape Comments

            There is one tree that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

1.   One specimen of Norfolk Island Hibiscus (Lagunaria patersonia) located towards the front of the site along Council’s nature strip. This tree is in the order of 6 metres in height appears to be in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree should be retained as part of this application and tree protection measures will be required during construction. 

 

Service Authority Comments

It is noted that the survey plan shows a steel pipe located at the surface of the existing driveway. The issued alignment levels may necessitate lowering of the levels along the driveway and consequently may necessitate the steel pipe being relocated/removed depending on the purpose of the pipe.

 

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 AIS section does not object to the application being approved, subject to the imposition of particular conditions.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4000sqm in area and so is not affected by master planning requirements.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-   Building Code of Australia.

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

 

8.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.2   Randwick Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved preferred solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

High thermal mass materials.

Solar hot water systems.

Insulated hot water pipes.

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

Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

Task lights.

 

Maximised natural lighting.

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

 

Not applicable: proposed garage (with storage space above) and swimming pool.

 

 

Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies: Doesn’t reduce access of sunlight to north facing windows of living areas.

 

Complies: Doesn’t reduce access of sunlight to private open space.

 

Complies: Doesn’t reduce access of sunlight to north facing windows of living areas of neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

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

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

fit in with hydrology;

use on–site stormwater infiltration;

maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

retain existing trees.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

A suitable condition can be included in the recommendation if the recommendation is for approval.

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable: no water related fixtures are proposed.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

allows year-round use

minimises impact on neighbours

addresses privacy and sun access

addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

Complies: approximately 42% of site is landscaped.

 

Complies > 25m2

 

 

Complies dimensions include >3m x > 15m

 

Does not comply. Most private open space would be located forward of front building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply: approximately 7% of site would exist as soft landscaping.

 

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Complies 0.48:1

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

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

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

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

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

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

 

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

 

Complies 5.1m

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Does not comply: 1.5m front setback.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies: 1.5m from eastern side boundary, >6m from western side boundary.

 

Complies: 1.5m from eastern side boundary, >6m from western side boundary.

 

N/A

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Front window of garage/storage structure does not comply.

 

Does not comply: proposed garage/storage structure would obscure view of front door from street.

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

enable the efficient use of car spaces.

safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Does not comply: driveway has a width of 5.3m at property boundary.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Does not comply: garage is located forward of front building line.

 

 

Does not comply: driveway occupies 44% of width of site.

N/A

 

N/A

 

 

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   Floor Area

 

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

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6:1 applies.

 

The storage area on the first floor of the proposed building (33.02sqm) would constitute floor area and would contribute to the overall FSR of the development. Upon completion of the proposed works, the proposal would have an FSR of 0.48:1 which satisfies the preferred solution.

 

The proposed building (containing a garage with storage space above) would appear excessive in bulk and scale and would not be compatible with the existing character of the locality. The performance requirements of the DCP in relation to floor area indicate that building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and must  minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space.

 

The proposed garage would not be compatible with the existing character of the locality as there are no other properties in this section of Elaroo Avenue with garage structures forward of the front building line of a two storey scale. Furthermore no other properties in this section of Elaroo Avenue contain structures which are as dominant in the streetscape.

 

9.2   Landscaping

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, that dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, that storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and that 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 is provided, that a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and that each dwelling’s private open space should be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

Approximately 42% of the site currently exists as landscaped area. Upon completion of the proposed works, the amount of the site which exists as landscaped area would be approximately the same as the amount which currently exists (as a swimming pool is considered to constitute landscaped area). Approximately 20% of the site currently exists as soft landscaping (being the area in the front yard that is not used as a car space). Upon completion of the proposed works, only 7% of the site would exist as soft landscaped area (being a small area around the edge of the proposed swimming pool).

 

The amount of the site covered with unsealed areas would be minimal and would not meet the performance requirements of the DCP in relation to soft landscaping.

 

9.3   Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and that they should 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 that buildings should 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 and that the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would be located wholly forward of the existing front building line (as determined by the front wall of the existing dwelling). The Elaroo Avenue elevation of the garage/storage structure would have a maximum external wall height of 5.1m and would present as a two storey structure. There is no existing pattern of garages located forward of the front building line in Elaroo Avenue.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the performance requirements in the DCP in that the proposed garage/storage structure is not designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street. In particular, the proposed garage/storage structure would be excessive in bulk and scale and would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape.

 

9.4   Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conforms 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 be closer than 4.5m to the rear boundary.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the performance requirements of the DCP in relation to front building setbacks. The front setback of the proposed garage/storage structure would not conform with the front setback of adjoining development. The proposed garage/storage structure would be located wholly forward of the existing front building line of the existing dwelling and would not conform with the predominant front building line which exists in Elaroo Avenue. The proposed works would comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in relation to side setbacks.

 

9.5   Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m, that driveways have a minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, that parking is located behind the building line, and that 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 the street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

 

The proposed garage/storage structure would not meet the performance requirements of the DCP in relation to garages. The length, height and siting of the proposed garage/storage structure is such that the structure would be visually obtrusive and would detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling and from the quality of the existing streetscape. The proposed structure would not be compatible in scale with the associated dwelling house.

 

9.6   Fences

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed alterations to the front fence would result in the fence not complying with either the preferred solutions or with the performance requirements of the DCP. The front fencing would not integrate with the surrounding streetscape and would not be compatible with the established front fence form in Elaroo Avenue which is characterised by fences which are lower and which are of a more open design that that which is proposed.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling do not comply with the objectives or performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and would result in an adverse impact upon the character of the locality.

 

The proposed works in the front yard of the subject site would result in approximately only 7% of the site existing as soft landscaped area, and would be located wholly forward of the front building line, presenting as a two storey structure. The proposed garage/storage structure and front fence would be excessive in bulk and scale and would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 151/2003 for the erection of a garage (with storage space above) and a swimming pool at the front of the existing dwelling and for modifications to the existing front fence at 38 Elaroo Avenue, Phillip for the following reasons:-

 

1.           The proposed swimming pool and garage/storage structure in the front yard would result in approximately only 7% of the site existing as soft landscaping, which does not comply with the Performance Requirement and Preferred Solution for ‘Landscaping & Open Space’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan that a minimum of 20% of the site has a permeable (soft landscaped) treatment.

 

2.           The proposed garage/storage structure would not comply with the Performance Requirements for ‘Building Setbacks’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the front building setback would not conform with the front setback of adjoining development or with the dominant setback along the street.

 

3.           The proposed garage/storage structure would not comply with the Performance Requirements for ‘Garages, Carports and Driveways’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the structure would detract from the appearance of the streetscape and would not be compatible in scale with the associated dwelling house.

 

4.           The proposed garage/storage structure would not comply with the Performance Requirements for ‘Height, Form & Materials’ in Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan in that the structure would be excessive in height and scale and would not be compatible with the character of the locality.

 

5.           The proposed front fence would not comply with the Performance requirements and Preferred Solution for ‘Fences’ in Council’s Dwelling Ho

 

6.           uses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan that solid front fences in front of the building line are to be no higher than 1.2m and integrate with the existing streetscape.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SIMON FRENCH

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 44/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

34-36 Park Avenue, Clovelly

 

 

DATE:

16 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/670/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Section 96 of the Development Consent No. 670/2002 on property 34-36 Park Avenue, Clovelly for amendment of conditions 1 & 2 to allow a setback of 900mm at the upper level north side and to allow the lowering of the building by 250mm instead of 500mm and internal changes

 

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 5 June 2003.

2.  A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

5 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/670/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 application to amend conditions 1 & 2 to allow a setback of 900mm at the upper level north side and to allow the lowering of the building by 250mm instead of 500mm and internal changes

PROPERTY:

 34-36 Park Avenue, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 P & L Say

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

It is proposed to amend conditions 1 & 2 to allow a setback of 900mm at the upper level (north side) and to allow the lowering of the building by 250mm (instead of 500mm) and internal changes.

 

Five submissions have been received to the notification of the modification. The main issues associated with the proposed are loss of views and impacts associated with the reduced side setback.

 

The recommendation is for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application requests approval to modify the approved Development Application No 670/2002 in the following manner:

 

A.  Amend the current Condition 1 and 2, which states:

 

“ 1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans comprising of four (4) sheets numbered A865/DA 02, DA03, DA01, DA06 dated 26.09.2002 prepared by Farnan Finlay Architects, received by Council on 1 October 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:”

 

“ 2. The height of the building shall be reduced by 500mm and the setback on the upper level of the building on the northern side boundary be increased to 1.5m.”

 

The amended condition 1 and 2 are to read:

 

“ 1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans comprising two (2) sheets numbered DA01:A and DA02:A dated March 2003 and prepared by Stanton Dahl, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended with the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.”

 

“ 2. The height of the building shall be reduced by 250mm. Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate plans.”

 

B.  Minor internal rearrangements to the ground and first floor layout, namely:

 

Ground floor

·    rumpus room being altered to the family room

·    deletion of powder /laundry room adjacent to the garage

·    replace dining room with laundry and pantry

·    rename family room to living and dining

 

First floor

·    convert the master bedroom to rumpus room and delete en-suite and walk in robe

·    Convert living room and study to master bedroom with en-suite and walk in robe.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

Currently existing on the subject site is two single semi-detached dwellings and a separate single garage with access from Park Street. The site is located on the western side of Park Street and has a frontage of 13.61m, a depth of 41.89m and a total site area of 538.80 sqm. The area is characterised by single and two storey attached and freestanding dwellings. The site has a fall of approximately 0.69m from the northern side boundary to the southern side boundary. 

 

The area is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and in close proximity to Clovelly Bay. Some of the properties have views of the ocean and of Clovelly Bay. 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA 670/2002            Demolish existing dwelling houses, consolidate three lots into one and construct a two storey dwelling house was approved by Council on 3 December 2002 subject to conditions.

 

5.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The section 96 application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Clause 29- Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area.  The provisions of Clause 29 have been considered and the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the visual character of the foreshore.

 

5.1       Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development: -

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

 

6.    SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT

 

6.1       Substantially the same development:

 

The proposed modification does not substantially alter the design and layout of the proposed development and is considered to constitute substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

6.2       Notification and consideration of submissions:

 

The application was notified to surrounding property owners on 27 March 2003 for a period of 14 days. As a result of this notification, five (5) submissions were received:

 

       Objections

 

1.     B & D Pollock – 38 Park St, Clovelly

·      The approved height of the building has already deprived our existing views south from inside our first floor lounge room and bedroom, leaving a limited horizon view over the top of the proposed development.

·      After lengthy negotiations, the modifications sought would effectively overturn compromise conditions to the DA.

·      Unexplained balcony on the first floor of the development facing north.

·      Reduced 1.5 m side setback on the northern side would create a feeling of being crowded in by an overbearing building of excessive bulk.

 

2.     P. Sharpe – Building & Development consultant on behalf of 38 Park Street, Coogee.

·      The view analysis sketch plan merely indicates levels and does not identify the views available.

·      A northern side setback of 1.5m should be maintained to limit the impact of the proposed development on views available and the amenity of the primary living area of 38 Park Street.

·      The proposed balcony is adjacent the swimming pool and does not maintain an acceptable level of visual and acoustic privacy to the adjoining neighbour at No 38 Park St.       

 

3.     L. O’Sullivan – 93 Boundary Street, Clovelly.

·      There would be a significant difference in view loss by another 250mm increase in height, which cannot be seen from the view sketches diagrams.

 

4.     K & J Mc Mah – 95 Boundary Street, Coogee.

·      Our loss of privacy and views have slowly been eroded over the years and this height reduction was arrived by a compromise of 500mm either way.

·      Every millimeter reduction counts considerably towards maintaining lifestyle we have enjoyed.

 

5.     V & J Williams – 32 Park Street, Coogee

·      The additional height means the winter shadow on our property will be increased significantly more beyond a mere 250mm, having regard to the angle of the sun to the edge of the proposed roof.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons in support of this application for the modification:

 

“-       The proposed changes are sought to improve and make more efficient use of the internal spaces of the dwelling without causing any unreasonable environmental impacts by way of view loss or overshadowing.

 

-     In terms of height, the requirement to lower the building by 500mm, as stated in Consent 02/00670/GA will result in:

 

a.   reduced floor to ceiling levels which will result in unreasonable internal living amenity with little benefit on increased views for adjoining residents; and

b.   the rear portion of the building would be lower than natural ground level, which will potentially impact in terms of run-off and drainage. This would result in poor amenity in the rear portion of the house.”

 

The objectors at the properties along Park Street and Boundary Street stated in their objections that the proposal would result in view loss. The objectors properties along Park Street and Boundary Street are sited some distance from the coast and as such receive distant ocean views with foreground views being of roofs and rear open space of adjoining residences. The subject site has a wide frontage and a long depth that adjoins several properties along Boundary Street and Park Street. It is noted that the original proposal had been pulled back from the rear boundary to reduce impacts on the neighbouring properties. A site inspection from the objector’s premises was undertaken to ascertain the extent of the view loss from the proposed development.

 

In regard to the objector at No. 38 Park Street (which is a two storey dwelling on a small allotment that adjoins the subject site), the inspection revealed that the adjoining property currently has unrestricted/extensive southern townscape and distant headland views over and along the sides of the existing single storey dwelling house on the site. It is noted that this adjoining property is quite disadvantaged by such a restricted small allotment. The view corridors presently available along the sides of the adjoining building (those views presently obtained over the roof of the existing single storey dwelling from living and bedroom) will be reduced by the proposed development given the second storey nature of the proposal. However, in order to minimise the impact on the loss of views at the upper level (living room), the proposed building has been setback so that it does not protrude in front of the building line and that it is in line with the front eastern wall of the adjoining upper living room area. By setting the proposed development in line with the adjoining building setback at No 38 Park Street, the proposed development permits the retention of a significant portion of the primary existing views of the ocean and the headland for the residents of the building at No 38 Park Street. No significant adverse impact is envisaged to this adjoining property due to the increase in height in terms overshadowing.

 

In regard to the loss of views from No 93 & 95 Boundary Street, it is considered that some impact on views will occur from the rear of the second storey level of the adjoining properties. However, No 93 Boundary Street has a third level that will not be impacted in terms of views. Consideration has been made in relation to the possibility that No 95 Boundary Street may extend further to include a future upper floor addition (similar in height to No 93 Boundary), allowing the opportunity to obtain greater ocean views. In order to assist Council to quantify the degree of view loss to the Boundary Street adjoining properties, the applicant has submitted photomontages prepared by obtaining access from the owners of No 95 Boundary Street. Owners of Nos. 93 Boundary Street and 38 Park Street were also contacted for preparation of some view analysis, however they have declined the applicant’s request for access into their properties.

 

The submitted photomontages depict the proposed development (decrease of 250mm in building height) with a red line and, depict Council’s recommended building height (decrease of 500mm) with a green line. The photomontages indicates that panoramic water views will be maintained from a standing position at the rear balcony of No 95 Boundary Street. It also reveals that some impact on water views will occur from a sitting and standing position in the living room of the adjoining house at No 95 Boundary Street. Overall, the photomontages indicate that there is minimal difference in the available views within the 250-500mm height range.  The proposed wall height of the building is 6.62m, which complies with the preferred solution of 7m contained in Council’s DCP.  Whilst there will be a small amount of view loss, the modification in this proposal does not selfishly take away views and is reasonable in the circumstances given its compliance with the preferred wall height requirement. The proposed upper level of building has a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m, which is considered to be a reasonable height to ensure good residential amenity and has been applied as a minimum requirement in Council’s recent Town Centre DCPs.  The amenity of the dwelling occupants would be compromised unreasonably with the maintenance of a condition requiring the dwelling to be further lowered, especially given that a further 250mm reduction in height would not result in a significant improvement in views.

 

In relation to the minor internal modifications proposed to the building, these works do not increase the floor space ratio, building envelope nor result in any additional adverse environmental impacts to the adjoining properties and as such are considered satisfactory.

 

In relation to reducing the side setback on the northern boundary from 1.5m to 0.9m, it is considered that no significant adverse impact which would warrant refusal of the application will be occasioned to the adjoining property by way of overshadowing or loss of privacy. It is to be noted that the adjoining property at No 38 Park Avenue has also a side setback of only 0.9m at the existing ground & first floor level from the side southern boundary. In addition, it is considered that the applicant has made reasonable attempt to retain privacy of the adjoining properties by proposing a high level rumpus room window at the northern side of the building.

 

In relation to the objectors concerns in terms of an “unexplained balcony”, which accompanies the application for modification, it is confirmed that this balcony has been approved in the original development application. The approved balcony is situated at the middle section of the proposed dwelling house at the first floor, facing the northern boundary and adjacent to the passage areas to the bedrooms at first floor. Given the layout of balcony and the 3.5m to 5.0m separation between the northern boundary and the balcony, no unreasonable impact is likely to result in terms of privacy loss between the proposed development and adjoining neighbours.

 

In relation to the increase of overshadowing on the adjoining properties due to the increase in height, the proposal will result in a minor increase in overshadowing particularly to No 32 Park Street (which is the adjoining southern premises). However, considering that the proposal is for a skillion flat roof instead of a pitch roof, the highest point of the roof is at the northern side of the building and provision of a 1.5m southern side setback will be provided, the extent of overshadowing is reasonable in the circumstances and meets the performance requirements of the DCP. No significant impact is envisaged to No 38 Park Street in terms of overshadowing, given that the objector’s property is to the north of the subject site.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development will remain substantially the same development as that originally approved. The amendments are considered acceptable from an amenity and design aspect. It will not result in any significant negative impacts to the adjoining owners in terms of view loss, privacy and overshadowing.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 670/2002 on property 34-36 Park Avenue, Clovelly in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 and 2 to read:

 

“ 1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans comprising of two (2) sheets numbered 80803 DA01 A & 80803 DA02 A dated March 2003 prepared by Stanton Dahl Architects received by Council on 19 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:”

 

2. The height of the building shall be reduced by 250mm. Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate plans

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IDALY YAP

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 45/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Villa 3, 61 High Street, Prince of Wales Hospital Randwick

 

 

DATE:

12 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/040/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 40/03 for alterations and additions to existing medical research institute including new first floor and signage at Villa 3, 61 High Street, Prince of Wales Hospital Randwick for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 20 May 2003

2.  A4 reduced plans. 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVER

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 May 2003

FILE NO:

D/040/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to existing medical research institute including new first floor and signage

PROPERTY:

 Villa 3, 61 High Street, Prince of Wales Hopsital Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Julius Bokor Architect P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $4,500,000.

 

The application is for works to Villa 3, which is a mental health research and treatment building within the Prince of Wales Hospital site. The Prince of Wales Hospital is a State government owned and managed property and accordingly the development falls within the terms of Section 115I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. As such Council cannot refuse the application without the consent of the Minister, nor may it impose conditions, without the consent of the applicant or the Minister.

 

The main issues for consideration are whether the Mater Plan requirements of the Randwick LEP 1998 should be waived, whether the proposed development will generate any additional demand for on site parking and whether it is visually compatible in bulk and scale and external appearance with the character of the existing buildings and has any amenity impacts on the neighbouring residential developments.

 

It is recommended that the requirement for submission of a Master plan be waived for the subject application given the proposed works are relatively minor and ancillary to the existing operations on the Hospital Campus.

 

On 14 August 2001, the Health, Building and Planning Committee resolved that the South Eastern Area Health Service (SEAHS) and Council continue to have discussions on the future provisions of a Master Plan for the Prince of Wales Hospital.  The SEAHS subsequently advised Council that no major projects are envisaged and that they are prepared to justify the exemption from the master plan requirements for each minor project.  Since the August resolution, there have been 7 applications lodged, mainly involving refurbishment of existing buildings.  However, the incremental impacts of such developments should not be understated in terms of their importance to the internal functioning of the campus and the broader effects on the locality. The site would clearly benefit from consideration of its long term and integrated use via the preparation of a master plan, which would also  provide the hospital with a strategic plan for the future. It is therefore recommended that the SEAHS be advised that any further development of the site which intensifies its use will not be allowed to proceed until a master plan has been prepared and determined by Council for the Prince of Wales Hospital Campus.

 

The application is recommended for subject to conditions of consent that have been agreed to by the applicant.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the ground floor of the existing villa building including a small extension to the footprint. A new first floor addition is also proposed which would accommodate staff offices and meeting rooms and some therapy rooms. The use of the villa will not change continuing to provide a service in relation to research into the treatment of depression. Small lecture theatres, conference rooms and 6 consulting rooms including spaces for occupational therapy and administrative areas will also be provided within the building over both floors.

 

Signage displaying the name of the building is also be proposed to provide internal direction assistance within the site.

 

The first floor addition is to be of a style and form in keeping with the character of the existing ground floor. The external finishes between the two floors are to be matched to ensure a uniform treatment of the building. The building incorporates a flat roof design and large windows to the first floor, narrow floor to ceiling windows are to be retained to the ground floor. A new perimeter masonry wall with a maximum height of 1800mm will be provided along the building providing a defined entry to the building and offering some privacy to the ground floor rooms from pedestrians within the hospital grounds.

 

No additional parking is proposed as part of this proposal.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is the Prince of Wales Hospital which is bounded by High Street, Hospital Street Avoca Street and Barker Street. The site has an area of around 9 ha.

 

The subject building is to the Barker Street side of the campus and is known as Villa 3 Black Dog Institute which is located in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute and the Kiloh Institute. Villa 3 was built in the 1960s and houses the mood disorder unit of the hospital. The building has a total floor area of 1103sqm.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A number of applications have been received over the past few decades for the redevelopment of the site with two periods of intensive redevelopment over the mid to late 1980s including some 5 applications, the second phase of redevelopment was during the 1990s which related to a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site.

 

a.     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was received on the 20 January 2003, a draft set of conditions were forwarded to the applicant on the 17 April 2003. These conditions were amended in part by the department. The primary changes related to amending references to compliance with Australian Standard being certifiable by the applicant’s appointed consultant. The applicant has approved the conditions included as part of this report’s recommendation.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

GT Gartner

17 Hay Street

 

·    Noise impacts experience by the medical institute wish to avoid a similar issue with this development.

 

Comment

There is no anticipated noise impact from the proposed use of the building as an occasional therapy space and for research into the cause and treatment of depression. Villa No. 3 as located within the Prince of Wales site is a sufficient distance from Hay Street to ensure there is no direct impact from the use of the building to the residents of that street. It is considered that the only likely impact will be from the plant room in relation to machinery relating to air conditioning and other such ventilation. It is considered that a condition of consent requiring the plant room to be sound attenuated to reduce noise impacts will sufficiently reduce any ambient noise.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

The application was referred to Environmental Health and Building for technical comment. 35 conditions of consent were provided, the Crown varied a number of these conditions however the intention of the original conditions remain.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The hospital site has a site area exceeding 4000sqm, which pursuant to Randwick LEP 1998 Clause 40a would require a Master Plan to be lodged for the site prior to the consideration of any development application. The consent authority is able to waiver the requirements of a master plan if the Council is satisfied that:

 

·    The development is considered to be of a minor nature

·    Ancillary to the current use of the land

·    Is subject to adequate guidelines and controls already in place for the site

 

The applicant for the proposal has written to Council seeking an exemption from the Master plan requirement on the basis that the proposed works are minor in nature contained largely within an the existing footprint of villa 3.

 

·    The black dog institute occupies a very small portion of the overall Prince of Wales Hospital site and includes a similarly small proportion of the overall floor space of the hospital. As a result the extension to their accommodation would be considered to be of a minor natures when looked at in the context of the hospital as a whole.

 

·    The proposed works are predominantly located above the existing building and thus do not effect the overall building footprint.

 

·    The extension to the villa is to provide more appropriate and extended accommodation, the institute is already established on the site and the extension to the villa will contain purpose built accommodation to allow the provision of services ancillary to those already being provided.

 

·    It is considered that the proposed development falls within the definition of being minor in nature and ancillary to the use of the land and as a result Council can determine the application in the absence of an adopted Master Plan for the site.

 

The South Eastern Area Health Service has written to Council seeking exemption from the Master Plan requirement on the basis that development of the campus is essentially complete and future works are likely to be in the nature of refurbishments of existing buildings.

 

The proposed development is considered minor and ancillary in the context of the scale of the existing hospital site.  The proposal does not exceed two levels and will not be readily visible from neighbouring residential properties. In terms of its traffic and car parking generating potential the proposed increase in traffic and demand for car parking is relatively minor in relation to the overall traffic and parking impact of the Hospital site.

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the requirement for submission of a Master Plan for the subject application be waived.

 

However the incremental impacts of further developments on the Campus should not be understated in terms of their importance to the internal functioning of the Campus and the broader effects on the locality.  Hence, it is considered that any further development, which intensifies the use of the site, should occur in an integrated and holistic manner. In this regard the site would clearly benefit from consideration of its long-term and integrated use and development via preparation of a Master Plan. It is therefore recommended that the South Eastern Area Health Service be advised that any further development proposals, which intensify the use of the Campus, shall trigger the requirement for the preparation of a Master Plan.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

There are no specific development control plans or specific assessment criteria that relate to the Prince  of Wales Hospital site. The application has been considered on its merits and will be discussed under environmental assessment.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal constitutes Crown development and as such:

 

a.     The application cannot be refused, except with the written approval of the Minister, and

b.     Conditions cannot be imposed, except with the written approval of the Minister or the applicant.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is not applicable to this development as the FSR of 0.5:1 is only imposed to a development within the special uses zone where the buildings are to be used as boarding houses, dwellings, group homes or multi unit developments. As the proposed additional floor area is to a medical institute building there is no applicable FSR.

 

Clause 37A Development in Special Uses Zone has been considered in relation to this development. The proposed works to villa 3 are not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the locality or on the amenity of nearby development either within the hospital site or to adjoining properties. The purpose of this clause has been satisfied by this proposal.

 

The requirements of Clause 40A Master plans have been previously addressed in this report.

 

8.1  Policy controls

 

a. Development Control Plan – Parking

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed development is entirely contained within the hospital site, the property does not address any public street frontage and is not located adjacent to any residential dwellings.

 

9.1   Traffic & car parking

 

Council’s Development Control Plan- Parking requires the provision of on-site car parking at a rate of 1 visitor space per 3 beds, 1 space per 2 employees, plus one space per doctor.

 

The total proposed increase to the facility is from 40 existing staff to 50 and 6 professionals using the proposed consulting rooms. The number of students using the facility will not increase from current numbers. Therefore the increase in users of the buildings is considered to be minimal with a total of 16 additional persons whose visits do not typically coincide as per the information provided as part of the weekday clinic activity timetable and submitted as part of the traffic study prepared by Arup Transportation planning.

 

Maximum patient attendance has been projected at 54 per day which would be spread throughout the day and the utmost number of patients per consultation at any one time would be 2. Therefore an overall increase in the number of persons seeking to park would be 6 consultants plus 12 patient at any one time. Added to the increase in full time staff numbers the quantity of vehicles (assuming all would drive to the campus) would be 28.

 

The report indicated that existing staff and visitors to the clinic use the hospital multi storey car park which provides 2242 car spaces. In 1998 car park usage rates were as follows:

 

·    75% of spaces allocated to staff were utilised at the peak period.

·    53% of spaces allocated to visitors and patients was utilised over the day time period.

 

The applicant’s traffic consultant has advised that whilst in the past 4 years the usage rates have increased but the car park is still under-utilised by all users. It is considered that the minimal increase in vehicular activity associated with the increase in staff to the black dog institute will be comfortably accommodated within the Randwick campus car park. Further, given that the hospital car park is in close proximity and convenient for the users of the subject building, it is unlikely that neighbouring residential streets would be used in preference to the Hospital carpark. The increase in traffic through the day is also considered to be minimal and will not impact on traffic flows to the access road system.

 

9.2   Privacy

 

There are no concerns for privacy as a result of an additional storey being erected on the hospital building, as surrounding properties are other hospital/institution buildings, which do not contain habitable rooms.

 

9.3   Built form , heritage conservation and urban design

 

The design of the first floor addition is considered to be consistent with the form of the existing building. All external facades between the two floors are to be upgraded to provide for a contemporary finish to the building and to ensure a uniform appearance between the original building and the new works. The upgrade to the external appearance to the building will also ensure the building is of quality and appearance consistent with the overall design standard of the hospital where buildings are being aesthetically upgraded to provide a comfortable environment for the hospital campus.

 

Associated signage and landscaping are considered acceptable and will improve the appearance of the building.

 

There are a number of heritage-listed buildings within the Prince of Wales’ Hospital site. The significance and character of these listed buildings will not be adversely affected by the first floor addition or external upgrade of the facades to villa 3 which itself is not listed as an item of environmental heritage or directly adjoining a heritage item.

 

9.4   Height

 

Height is not an assessment criterion for an institute building within the special uses zone. The proposed overall height for the building is 9m, which is considered to be in keeping with the scale of other buildings within this section of the hospital site and surrounding buildings to adjoining properties.

 

9.5   Solar access

 

Additional shadows will be minimal and will fall to adjoining hospital buildings with no impact to residential dwellings.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is relatively minor and ancillary to the existing operations on the Hospital Campus and as such the requirement for submission of a Master Plan for the subject application should be waived.  However the site would clearly benefit from consideration of its long-term and integrated use and development via preparation of a Master Plan and hence any further development of the site which intensifies its use should not be allowed to proceed until a Master Plan has been prepared and approved for the Prince of Wales Hospital.

 

The applicant has demonstrated, by way of a parking and traffic study, that there would be minimal burden on the parking capacity of surrounding streets given the excess capacity of parking bays in the Hospital Campus and the small increase in the demand for additional car spaces.

 

The works are contained within the hospital site with a generous setback from adjoining residential properties, there will be no impact to either the streetscape of adjoining street frontages or the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

 

The proposed development is visually compatible in bulk, scale and external appearance with the adjoining buildings within the hospital campus and surrounding residential streets.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT the requirement for the submission of a Master Plan under Clause 40A of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, as amended be waived on the grounds that the proposed development is minor and ancillary to the current use of the land.

 

B.         The New South Wales Department of Health be advised that any further development of the site which intensifies its use will not be determined until a Master plan has been prepared and approved for the Prince of Wales’ Hospital site.

 

C.        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 40/03 for alterations and additions to existing medical research institute including new first floor and signage at Villa 3, 61 High Street, Prince of Wales Hospital Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0212 A-01-04 A and A-07, dated 26 November 2002 and received by Council on 20 January 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3          The proposed plant room to the roof of the additional storey of villa 3 shall have sufficient noise attenuation measures undertaken to ensure no unreasonable noise level affects adjoining properties to Hall Street.

 

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:

 

4          Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter. Details to be provided prior to commencement of building works.

 

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.

 

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:

 

5.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.         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.

 

8.         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.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the details be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

Stockpiles of soil, sand aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or 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 in footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location, which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

9.         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 center for a nominal fee.

 

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

 

11.       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 accurate fence, having a minimum height of 1500mm). Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1800mm and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or another material approved by Council.

 

12.       Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing not permissible. The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation of building woks and be maintained throughout construction.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection:

 

13.       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).

 

14.       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).

 

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

 

16.       Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site.  The use of fine mesh dust proof screens or other relevant measures is recommended.  Any existing accumulations of dust (eg, ceiling voids and wall cavities) must be removed by the use of an industrial vacuum fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.  All dusty surfaces and dust created from work is to be suppressed by a fine water spray.  Water must not be allowed to enter the street and stormwater systems.  Demolition is not to be performed during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond site boundaries.

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT:

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

 

17.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

20.       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.

 

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

 

22.       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”.

 

23.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be prepared 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.       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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


Director Planning & Community Development's Report 46/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Master Plan for 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

 

 

DATE:

17 June, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4873

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

1.         INTRODUCTION:

 

On 14 May 2003, Cosmopolitan Developments Pty. Limited submitted a Master Plan for the site at 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville. 

 

The subject site comprises two sections, the first being No. 497-503 Bunnerong Road, which currently has a building housing the Theo’s Liquor Store, and the second is No. 495 Bunnerong Road containing a building used by Australia Post.

 

The Master Plan sets out a strategy for the development of the subject land for a mixed-use development comprising business premises and attached multi-unit housing. The proposal comprises two buildings – a western building with frontage to Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue over part of the Theo Liquor Store, and all of the Australia Post, site, and an eastern building with frontage to Daunt Avenue extending the whole length of the eastern boundary over the remainder of the Theo Liquor Store site.

 

The Master Plan has been prepared in consultation with Council in accordance with clause 40(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Randwick LEP 1998). In accordance with clause 40(6) of Randwick LEP 1998 Council advertised and exhibited the Master Plan and called for public submissions. The notification and exhibition process has occurred and the results are detailed in relevant sections of this report.

 

This report recommends that Council adopt the Master Plan for 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, subject to variations to the Master Plan and acceptance of a number of matters to be addressed in future development applications for the proposal.

 

2.         THE MASTER PLAN:

 

The proposed development will essentially comprise two buildings – a western building with frontage to Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue, and an eastern building with frontage to Daunt Avenue and extending along the eastern boundary of the subject site.

 

The Master Plan proposes the following uses:

 

            Residential

 

§ 2 x Studio dwellings

§ 43 x one-bedroom dwellings

§ 43 x two-bedroom dwellings

§ 15 x three-bedroom dwellings

§ 2   x four-bedroom dwellings

 

Total : 105 dwellings

 

Retail/Commercial

 

§ 3 x shops (150 sqm, 200 sqm and 500 sqm)

 

The proposal will also provide 170 car parking spaces comprising 137 spaces in the Theo Liquor Store site (36 in the ground floor and 101 in the basement) and 33 in the Post Office site.

 

A total of 2250 sqm of landscaping will be provided comprising 1150 sqm at ground level, 750 sqm at podium level, and 350 sqm in the Post Office site.

 

Access will be provided via two access points on Daunt Avenue - an entry/exit point for the Theo Liquor site and another entry/exit point for the Post office site. 

 

The proposal will also include landscaping works to an existing public reserve on Pillars Place to integrate with the landscaped area of the proposed development and provide a landscaped pedestrian connection from Pillars Place to Daunt Avenue. 

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Daunt Avenue and the eastern side of Bunnerong Road (that is at the south-eastern corner of these two roads). The Theo Liquor Store site has an area of 4,887 sqm and the Australia Post site has an area of 776 sqm giving a total area of 5,663 sqm. The subject site has a slight gradient east to west and north to south.

 

The land is currently occupied by a liquor retail store at No. 497-503 Bunnerong Road and a two-storey building housing Australia Post No. 495 Bunnerong Road.

 

The surrounding area comprises predominantly retail/commercial uses with the subject site located within the Matraville Commercial Centre. To the west on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road is an existing shopping strip comprising predominantly two-storey shops and residence above with continuous awning. To the north on the opposite side of Daunt Avenue are predominantly residential flat buildings. Adjoining the site to the east is a mix of single-storey and double storey dwelling houses fronting Daunt Avenue and Pillar’s Place, and a public park. To the south, are two dwelling houses and a church building fronting Bunnerong Road.

 

4.         MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS:

 

Under the provisions of Amendment No 17 to Randwick LEP 1998, a Council adopted Master Plan is required prior to a consent authority determining a development application for areas greater than 4,000 square metres within the City of Randwick except for sites which have been granted a waiver under Clause 40A(2) of the Randwick LEP which allows Council to waive the requirement for a Master Plan if it is satisfied that the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.  These waiver provisions do not apply to the subject site. If adopted, the Master Plan applies for 5 years.

 

5.         STATUTORY AND POLICY CONTROLS:

 

The subject site is zoned Local Business 3B under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. This zone permits, amongst other things, development for commercial and retail uses as well as multi-unit housing where the dwellings are part of the building housing the commercial/retail uses. A floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and height control of 12m applies for all residential buildings (other than dwelling houses).

 

In addition to the Randwick LEP 1998, the following statutory planning instruments are also applicable to the proposal:

 

§ SEPP No. 11 – Traffic Generating Development

§ SEPP No. 32 – Urban Consolidation

§ SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

§ SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

§ SEPP No. 66 – Transport  – Integrating Land Use and Transport

 

Apart from the provisions of the above-mentioned statutory instruments, the following development control plans of Council apply to the proposal:

 

§ DCP – Matraville Commercial Centre

§ DCP – Parking

 

6.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION:

 

The Master Plan was exhibited from 21 May to 4 June 2003 through advertisements in the local newspaper and notification of surrounding residents. 

 

Three submissions were received in response to the public exhibition as follows:

 

R Wells, 505 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

 

§ Loss of sunlight and privacy.

§ Dilapidation report must be prepared to monitor potential damage from excavation and construction.

§ Potential damage and landfall from excavation on boundary.

§ Devaluation of property.

 

P & D Simmonds, 16 Pillars Place, Matraville

 

§ Building height exceeds the 12 m building height control in 3B zone

§ Wrong description of outbuilding on objector’s property.

 

         Petition signed by 55 residents raising the following issues:

 

§ Building height is excessive.

§ Loss of sunlight to residents of Pillar Place.

§ Result in increased demand for on-street carparking.

§ Access-point is too close to intersection of Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed in section 9 of this report.

 

7.         TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

 

7.1       Health, Building and Environment Comments

 

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services Section raise no objections to the master plan subject to appropriate amendments being made to the Master Plan to state that:

 

§ A preliminary site contamination investigation identifying any past or present potentially contaminating activities on the site, a detailed appraisal of the site history, and results of a visual site inspection and assessment of the site will be undertaken. Where information on site contamination is limited, some soil sampling may be warranted to address the requirements of council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999.

 

§ Should the preliminary site contamination investigation reveal the existence of contamination, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of:

 

·    The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    EPA guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999;

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land;

·    DUAP/EPA Planning Guidelines 1997 - Managing Contaminated Land;

 

Should contamination be revealed on the site, the site will be required to be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. In the case of asbestos, where no standard exists, Council will require that the site be asbestos free or be remediated to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government authority. Council will require the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and ground water to certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan.

 

§ Appropriate investigations will be undertaken to determine if the land is affected by the presence of Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) as outlined in Council’s “Advice on Acid Sulphate Soil” pamphlet. Should the proposed works for the development constitute works that present an environmental risk in relation to ASS, further investigations shall be undertaken to determine ASS impacts.

 

There will be key acoustic issues including, noise levels within residential units from traffic, acoustics between other sole occupancy residential and commercial units and noise from plant and equipment. An acoustic report will be required to be provided at the development application stage to address these issues.

 

Apart from contamination issues, other matters relating to noise, vibration, environmental amenity, health and safety will be required to be addressed at the DA stage. 

 

7.2       Assets and Infrastructure Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

Drainage Comments

 

The applicant should be advised of the following general requirements for site stormwater discharge:

 

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

 

Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development.

 

The applicant should undertake sufficient geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed development would have any affect on, or be affected by, the existing groundwater conditions.

 

As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table and/or affected by the movement of seepage water any basement carpark or similar structure may need to be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Any proposed drainage easement should be of sufficient width to accommodate a pipeline capable of draining stormwater flows for up to the 1 in 20 year storm event and conveying overland flows for storms up to the 1 in 100 year event.

 

Traffic/Civil Works Comments

 

The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the full cost for all civil works required in the streets fronting the development site, including but not limited to the following:

 

New vehicular crossings opposite the proposed vehicular entry/exit points.

 

Removal of any redundant vehicular crossings and reinstatement of the areas.

 

Footpath works along the Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road site frontages, such works to be in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville.

 

The carparking spaces, aisle widths, internal circulation, ramp widths and grades of the proposed carpark areas are to generally conform to Council’s Development Control Plan Parking and AS 2890.1-1993. Gradients along the internal driveways should also generally conform to the relevant sections of Council’s Development Control Plan Parking.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level, splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre or suitably setback 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.

 

The average traffic generation for the residential component of the development consisting of 110 residential units and 965 square metres of retail/commercial space will be in the range of 900 to 1000 vehicle movements per day, with an expected peak flow volume of approximately 90 vehicles per hour.

 

The applicant has submitted a traffic study to determine the peak traffic generation from the residential and retail components of the development. The traffic study, however, is based on a lesser scale of development than the final master plan submission and therefore needs to be revised. In order to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the nearby intersections of Daunt Avenue/Bunnerong Road and Bunnerong Road/Beauchamp Road, the applicant’s traffic consultant has undertaken INTANAL analysis of the intersections.  The pre-development level of service for the intersections were found to be B/C, and the traffic report indicates that post-development these intersections will continue to operate at the same level of service as today, with similar average delays per vehicle. As noted above, however, the traffic study will need to be revised based on the level of development proposed in the final master plan submission.

 

The development site fronts a state road, (Bunnerong Road), and is either adjacent to, or within the vicinity of a number of signalised intersections. The master plan submission has been forwarded to the relevant sections of the Roads and Traffic Authority for consideration/comment and any development application for this site would need to address any issues raised by the RTA. The RTA will need to fully assess the INTANAL analysis of the Daunt Avenue/Bunnerong Road and Bunnerong Road/Beauchamp Road intersections. Any development application for this site that involved works similar in scope to the works proposed by the master plan would also be referred to the Randwick Development Committee for consideration.

 

The DAIS recommends that consideration be given by the applicant to consolidating the 2 proposed vehicular entry/exit points for the site into a single entry/exit point, such entry/exit point to be located a suitable distance from the signalised intersection at Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road.

 

The DEPCD has advised the DAIS that a total of 170 carspaces are proposed for the development site. The final unit mix has not been determined however based on Council’s DCP – Parking the calculated number of spaces required is in the order of 170, (146 spaces for residential/visitor and 24 commercial/retail). The applicant should be directed to provide onsite parking for the development in accordance with the parking rates in Council’s DCP – Parking. Onsite loading facilities should also be provided in accordance with the relevant sections of DCP – Parking and RTA guidelines.

 

Splay corners

 

The development site appears to have a dedicated splay corner at the intersection of Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road in the order of 2metres by 2 metres. The DAIS is of the opinion that this splay should be increased to be a minimum of 3 metres by 3 metres and any development application submission should be prepared on the basis of the larger splay.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

The applicant has identified a number of garbage bin storage areas in plans MP 03 and MP 04. A detailed assessment of the waste management for the site will be undertaken at the development application stage, in general the applicant should be advised of the following:

 

Based on the master plan submission a minimum of 55 x 240 litre recycle bins would be required for the residential component of the development. The residential component of the site would also need to provide for 55 x 240 litre garbage bins or an equivalent system, (eg a compactor unit/s may be incorporated in the waste management strategy).

 

The retail/commercial waste storage area should be suitably sized and separated from the residential bin storage area/s.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

Council’s Landscape Technician has considered the application and raises no objections in principle to the proposed landscape treatment of the site. Detailed landscape design plans for the site will need to be submitted and approved as part of the assessment of any future development application and/or construction certificate application for the site.

 

The Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road site frontages shall be the subject of street tree planting in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan. The Bunnerong Road footpath fronting the development site is approximately 3.65 metres in width and there are no overhead power lines. Council’s Landscape Technician is of the opinion that street tree planting can be undertaken along this section of Bunnerong Road subject to the proposed awning for the development being suitably designed to accommodate the future growth of the street trees. The applicant should liaise with Council regarding openings within the awning/design of the awning prior to lodgement of a development application for the site. The street tree species for Bunnerong Road would be Eucalyptus robusta “ Swamp Mahogany”.

 

The DAIS raises no objection to the proposed connectivity between the development site and the public reserve located immediately to the east of the site. A detailed assessment of the proposal would be undertaken following lodgement of the development application.

 

The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue street frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property.

 

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

 

Service Authority Comments

 

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

 

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

 

Any electricity substation required for the site is to be located within the site and is to be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant is to liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging a development application to determine if an electricity substation will be required for the development, (the master plan submission makes provision for an electricity substation).

 

The applicant should be advised that as part of any development consent for the site Council may require the applicant to meet the cost for Energy Australia to either bundle all the overhead power lines fronting the site along Daunt Avenue or to underground the subject cables.

 

8.         EXTERNAL COMMENTS:

 

8.1       Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The Master Plan application was referred to RTA. No response has been received from the RTA despite a number of requests from Council. Notwithstanding, the absence of RTA’s comments, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services raise no objections to the Master Plan subject to further detailed assessment at the development application stage. Any future development application for the subject site will be referred to the RTA and State Regional Advisory Committee (SRDAC) as the proposal falls under Schedule 2 development under SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Development.

 

9.         DISCUSSION AND ISSUES:

 

Clause 5 of Amendment No. 17 to the Randwick LEP 1998 lists a range of matters that masterplans are required to address. The matters that are relevant to this application are discussed in the following sub-sections noting especially those matters that will require master plan variations and issues raised in submissions.

 

9.1       Design

 

The western building will have a major frontage to Bunnerong Road and a secondary frontage to Daunt Street with an apartment building presentation. The eastern building will have a similar presentation albeit with a shorter frontage to the Daunt Avenue.

 

Objections have been received raising concerns that the design of the proposal does not blend in with the existing character of the area. Whilst the Master Plan application only considers the overall shape and form of the proposal, it has provided sufficient detail to indicate that the proposal will allow for a style of construction that would be compatible with the surrounding area.

 

The design of the scheme attempts to break down the developments bulk and scale through vertically oriented openings made into the predominantly masonry wall with deep reveals and some expressed lintels. Specifically, the proposal will have a modern façade combining face-brickwork, rendered elements with feature materials for louvres, sunshades and balconies, all of which will generally contribute to an enhancement of the streetscape and character of the Matraville Commercial Centre. In addition, the proposal will have distinguishable base, middle and top in its design.

 

No reference has been made in the Master Plan report to design principles that have guided the layout and orientation of the proposed development apart from generalised statements about the location of living spaces and garden areas. It is recommended that the Master Plan be varied to include a list of design principles that are relevant to the proposed development and achieve a high quality architectural response, including but not limited to, the following:

 

1.   Buildings are to be designed in accordance with the building principles contained in Residential Flat Design Pattern Book – PlanningNSW and NSW Department of Public Works and Services.

 

2.   Buildings are to be designed and aligned to reflect street corner conditions with appropriate architectural treatment and street hierarchy considerations.

 

3.   All dwellings are to be designed to achieve cross-ventilation.

 

4.   Building fronts and entries are to be readily apparent from the street and convey a sense of address. Building detailing and articulation must enable dwellings to be identified from the street.

 

5.   Buildings are to be aligned predominantly parallel to the street boundary.

 

6.   Building facades are to provide environmental amenity through sun shading devices, privacy screens and noise barriers combined with useable outdoor areas.

 

7.   Buildings are to ensure a safe physical environment by promoting crime prevention through design.

 

At the development application stage, the design of the proposal will be required to adhere to the above-listed principles.

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 55, an Interim Urban Design Review Panel has reviewed the Master Plan and has raised the following issues in relation to the proposal:

 

§ The Daunt Avenue elevation has not been properly considered in relation to the street level and the uses to be located along the frontage.

 

Comment: The applicant advises that the Daunt Avenue elevation shown in the Master Plan is conceptual pending resolution of issues pertaining to the amalgamation of the Australia Post site. Accordingly, the redesign of the Daunt Avenue elevation in terms of an appropriate streetscape presentation and uses to be located along this street frontage will be required as a matter to be addressed in future development applications (see Part B – Matters to be addressed in Future Development Applications).

 

§ The overall length, massing and scale should be considered and argued in relation to the overall commercial area.

 

Comment: As part of the master planning process, the applicant has undertaken a series of building form studies to produce an optimal footprint and building envelope for the site in terms of a range of urban design criteria based on existing site constraints and opportunities. The study and its outcome are considered appropriate and reasonable. In particular, the length of the proposal is to a large extent predetermined by the need for building edge along Bunnerong Road and the north-south longitudinal nature of the site. Whilst the proposal is higher than existing development in the Matraville Commercial Centre, its massing and scale is not considered excessive as the site has a considerable size and depth. Furthermore, the upper floor of the western building will be setback from Bunnerong Road by 3.5m such that the visual bulk of the building will be minimised from the street level. Other setbacks to the upper floor of the western and eastern buildings are listed in Section 9.2 below and these cumulatively contribute towards mitigation of the visual bulk of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal will be designed with an appropriate height and design treatment to the Post Office corner to accentuate its prominence.

 

The proposal will also provide for considerable landscaped areas to soften its built form notwithstanding the absence of any statutory/policy requirement for this.

 

It should be noted that, in terms of density, the Urban Design Review Panel considered the proposal satisfactory.

 

§ Landscaping is essential along Bunnerong Road such that the building should be set back 6m to allow for suitable pavement width and the ability to grow trees that can support a mature canopy.

 

Comment: In response to the Panel’s comments, the applicant has advised that:

 

“the requirement for setting back the building from Bunnerong Road cannot be justified. Council's DCP requires awning to within 600 mm of the kerb and this precedence has been consistently followed in the immediate locality in recent development approvals (eg 507 and 513 Bunnerong Road). The presbytery and church and the approved DA for the immediate neighbours do not set back. This will be an isolated case in Matraville and will not result in the full canopy shade trees discussed.”

 

The applicant has also provided advice from a landscape architect as follows:

 

“…assuming that the services in the road comply with the current  Code of Practice of the Sydney Streets Opening Conference … generally these days electricity ... are in the same trench at 600mm from property boundary so there is a place at approx 900-1200mm from kerb to locate a tree.

 

The species used would need to be fairly vigorous to withstand the site conditions of limited permeable pavement, high wind and some salt - the species noted in the Randwick Street Tree Master Plan would be acceptable, such as Smooth Barked Apple (Angophora costata), or Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta). Some consideration should be given to providing some porous pavement around trees.”

 

The applicant has also emphasised the effect of soil conditions in the locality affected by the existing swamp valley floor and the harsh southerly and westerly winds due to its coastal context as evident in the wind deformed shapes of the existing trees in the area. As such, setting the building back will not assist in achieving the dense canopy foliage requested by the Panel. Furthermore, shading of residential units facing west on to Bunnerong road can be achieved architecturally with screens and deep balconies.

 

Overall, the applicant’s justification for not setting back the proposed building from Bunnerong Road is considered reasonable, given the following considerations:

 

§ the existing retail/commercial strip along Bunnerong Road in the Matraville Commercial Centre currently has a strong physical edge to Bunnerong Road. A setback along the Bunnerong Road frontage as requested by the Panel will create an indentation that is considered to detract from the existing urban edge in the centre.

 

§ Awnings are a significant feature of the existing shopping strip in the Matraville Commercial Centre and this design feature is a requirement in the DCP – Matraville Commercial Centre. The provision of a continuous awning along the Bunnerong Road frontage of the site, complemented by a strong zero-setback edge to Bunnerong Road, is considered appropriate.

 

§ Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises street tree planting along the existing pavement (which has a width of approximately 3.65m) is possible with appropriate tree species selection.  

 

§ Central area needs deep soil planting zones, minimum depth of 2 metres. Deep soil planting needs to be located in central courtyard

 

Comments: In response to the Panel’s comments, the applicant’s landscape architect has provided the following advice:

 

“The soil depth in the central courtyard varies and in some places it is about 1.2m. The asset of the scheme is the generous longitudinal extent of the soil medium, which is more conducive for establishing both a good moisture balance in the soil and a better structural root system for the plant material. The plant species selected are distributed to suit the various depths of soil across the podium and I believe where the small trees species are located on the DA plans the soil depths (750-1200mm) are adequate.  The soil medium proposed accommodates the growing needs of the proposed species and is specifically designed to guard against anaerobic decomposition conditions occurring within the on slab garden bed.”

 

The applicant has also provided a cross section to indicate the relationship of the proposed central courtyard podium and the carparking below.

 

The need for a continuous basement carpark will not allow for a central deep soil planting zone. Furthermore, there is no statutory/policy requirement for deep soil planting to be provided on-site. In view of this, the provision of a central courtyard with soil depths varying from 750 mm to 1.2m is considered reasonable.

 

§ Size and dimension of bays for trees in the eastern setback needs to be coordinated with carparking plan to allow deep soil areas for these trees should be doubled.

 

Comments: The applicant has advised that the size of bays for trees in the eastern setback will be increased through deletion of relevant carparking spaces and this will be reflected as a matter to be addressed in future development applications for the site.

 

§ Consideration must be given to through site links.

        

Comments: The applicant advises as follows:

 

“A cross site link is not practical given the changes in level, the security issues and the need to create a quiet landscaped residential zone completely remote from the active commercial carpark and loading dock area. A cross-site pedestrian link would be through the carpark and direct pedestrians to the point 55 metres down the hill from the existing pedestrian crossing creating a dangerous crossing point. We feel the RTA would not install another crossing so close to the intersection. The cross site link proposed and submitted in the northern corner of the site links and extends the Pillars Place Garden and directs pedestrians to the main intersection and crossing point.”

 

The applicant’s concerns regarding safety in the proposed ground floor carpark and security for residents in support of the argument not to provide a cross-site link is considered reasonable. However, the proposal will be required to allow access to the central courtyard for all future residents in both the eastern and western buildings as a matter to be addressed in future development application for the site. Access to this central courtyard will also facilitate through site circulation for future residents of the eastern building to Bunnerong Road at the proposed arcade entrance point and vice-versa. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to amend the design at the development application stage to permit and facilitate access to and through the central courtyard for all residents of the proposal.

 

It should be noted that pedestrian access from Bunnerong Road to the ground floor carpark will be provided approximately mid-way along the Bunnerong Road frontage. In addition, the provision of public pedestrian access between the public park on Pillars Place and Daunt Avenue is considered adequate and appropriate.

 

9.2       Building Envelope and Built Form

 

The draft Master Plan proposes a development with the following builtform:

 

Eastern block:

 

§ Max height (finished ground level to roof) : Approx. 15.19m (Part 4-storey, part 5-storey).

 

§ Setback : First 4 storeys will have zero setback to Bunnerong Road, Daunt Street and rear southern boundaries. Fifth storey setback approximately 6m from the Bunnerong Road boundary, 4m from the Daunt Avenue boundary, and 9.5m from southern boundary.

 

§ Density : Gross floor area of 5619 sqm. (overall FSR 2:1)

 

Western Block:

 

§ Max height (finished ground level to roof)  :  Approx. 16m (Part 4-storey, part 5-storey)

 

§ Setback (eastern side) :  First 3 storeys setback by minimum 3.4m and maximum 10m from the eastern boundary. Fourth storey setback by a minimum 6m and maximum 10m from the eastern boundary. Fifth storey setback minimum l0m and maximum 15.1m from the eastern boundary.

 

§ Setback (northern side) :  First 4 storeys setback predominantly 6.68m from the northern boundary. Fifth storey setback by a minimum 24m and maximum 32 m from the northern boundary.

 

§ Setback (southern side) :  First 3 storeys setback by minimum 3.035m and maximum 10.655m from the southern boundary. Fourth storey setback by a minimum 3.035m and maximum 7.16m from the southern boundary. Fifth storey setback by 26.9m from the southern boundary.

 

§ Density : Gross Floor Area of 5491 sqm. (overall FSR 2:1)

 

Clause 32 and 33 of the RLEP 1998 sets a maximum FSR limit of 1.5:1 and maximum height limits at 12m for developments in the 3B zone. The two building blocks will exceed the height and FSR controls in the RLEP 1998. Future development applications will need to be accompanied by State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objections to justify departure from these controls. A preliminary assessment of the design and builtform of the proposal indicates that variation from the Randwick LEP height and FSR controls as proposed is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposal will have a scale, massing and proportion that does not detract from the streetscape and built character of the Matraville Commercial Centre as assessed in Section 9.1 above.

 

§ The proposal will result in minimal detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties as assessed in Section 9.3 below.

 

9.3       Landscaping and Public Domain

 

The proposal will provide internal landscaped areas in the form of a deep soil planting zone in the setback along the eastern boundary and a central courtyard podium. The deep soil planting zone will be designed to provide a communal open space to the development with appropriate short, medium and tall plantings. In particular, the tall plantings will be in the form of proposed fig-trees with wide canopies to assist in privacy screening to adjoining residents in Pillars Place. A requirement for future development applications will be applied to create wider planting bays for these trees (see Part B – Matters to be addressed/submitted in Future Development Applications).

 

The central courtyard podium will have soil depths varying from 700mm to 1.2m which will allow for substantial plantings. An assessment of the submission plans, indicates that the central courtyard is not accessible to all future residents within the proposed development and is not conducive to circulation between the eastern building and Bunnerong Road and vice-versa. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to amend the Master Plan to state that access to and through the central courtyard for all residents of the proposal will be provided to permit and facilitate circulation between the eastern building and Bunnerong Road and vice-versa (see Part A – Schedule of variations and Part B – Matters to be addressed/submitted in Future Development Applications).

 

The deep soil landscape zone along the eastern setback will be integrated with the existing public reserve on Pillars Place which is also proposed to be rejuvenated with appropriate landscaping including the provision of a pedestrian path through the reserve and proposal’s deep soil landscaped zone linking Pillars Place and Daunt Avenue (see Part A – Schedule of variations).

 

9.4       Impact on adjoining properties

 

9.4.1    Sunlight

 

The overshadowing impacts of the indicative building envelopes have been provided and these show that internally the north-south orientation of the eastern and western buildings will allow adequate solar access in winter to the deep soil landscape zone along the eastern boundary and the internal landscaped podium between the eastern and western buildings.

 

The generous private open space on the podium level between the proposed buildings will also allow for adequate ventilation and air-flow between the buildings. Energy efficiency will be required to be addressed in detail at the development application stage. 

 

Externally, the proposed eastern block will overshadow Bunnerong Road, the internal central courtyard and the adjoining southern properties in the winter mornings. In the winter noon, the central courtyard will be free of overshadowing which will gradually increase over the rear of the Church to the south.  In the winter afternoon, overshadowing will extend beyond the rear of the Church to the adjoining property.

 

Concern has been raised by residents of Pillars Place in relation to afternoon overshadowing. The shadow diagrams show that there will be no overshadowing of the properties fronting Pillars Place throughout the winter day. This has been achieved through the generous setback of the proposal from the eastern boundary and the well-considered orientation of the proposed development upon the site.

 

An objection has also been received from the owner/resident of the existing dwelling house on the adjoining rear southern property at No. 505 Bunnerong Road in relation to loss of sunlight. The applicant’s shadow diagrams confirm that there will be loss of sunlight onto this southern dwelling house. However, the substantial internal landscaped podium area between the eastern and western buildings will ensure that natural light will still be maintained to the rear yard and rear east-facing wall of the objector’s dwelling house which is considered reasonable. Furthermore, it should be noted that the objector’s property and the southern property beyond are also commercially zoned such that the area is transitional in nature with the potential for redevelopment to higher densities in the future.

 

9.4.2    Privacy

 

Concern has been raised by residents in Pillars Place to potential loss of privacy from the proposed development. Overlooking will potentially occur from the east-facing balconies linked to living areas of the proposed development. However, this overlooking will be mitigated by the provision of a substantial setback between the proposed building and the common eastern boundary so that the separation distance between the proposed development and  existing dwelling houses in Pillars Place will be effectively in excess of 11m. This separation is considered reasonable given that there are no setback requirements in the Local Business 3B zone. In addition, the proposal will provide a deep soil landscape zone along the eastern boundary to allow for screen planting, including wide canopied trees, to minimise overlooking from balconies subject to a specific variation to the Master plan to increase the planting areas for the proposed trees. In order to further minimise the potential for overlooking, the proposal will be required to be varied at the development application stage to incorporate privacy screens on all east-facing balconies in the eastern building. 

 

Overlooking concerns have also been raised by the resident/owner of the dwelling house in the adjoining southern property. As the proposal will have a blank wall built up to the common southern rear boundary no overlooking will occur from this part of the proposed development. Some overlooking from living areas in the west elevation of the eastern building will occur onto the rear yard of the objector’s property. This overlooking is considered acceptable given that the objector’s property and the southern property beyond are also commercially zoned and are therefore transitional in nature with the potential for redevelopment to higher densities in the future.

 

9.5       Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The Master Plan refers broadly to principles promoting ecologically sustainable principles in the design of the proposed development. By way of variation to the Master Plan, a specific section will be required in the Master Plan document listing the following measures to be incorporated into the proposed development (see Part A  – Schedule of Variations below):

 

Energy Efficiency

 

§ A study detailing the most appropriate hot water heating system for the proposed development having regard to maximum reduction in green house gases together with any options for renewable energy use.

 

§ Building materials, appliances and fuel sources are to be selected to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

 

§ Buildings are to have an area of roof with appropriate orientation and pitch, suitable for installing solar collectors.

 

§ All developments shall have adequate insulation to the recommended level Australian Standard 2627 – 1993 “Thermal insulation of dwellings”.

 

§ Buildings are to be made of materials that have a higher thermal mass value such as bricks, concrete and stone. Where timber is used it is to be plantation, recycled or regrowth timber. No rainforest or old growth timber is to be used.

 

§ Three or more storey developments are to demonstrate energy efficient design achieving a NatHERS rating of not less than 4.5 stars. Any non-compliance with the rating nominated is to be justified in a report prepared by an expert in this area that comprehensively assesses the energy performance of the building and demonstrates compliance with the objectives of these controls.

 

§ Energy efficient lighting and control systems are to be provided in all common and outdoor areas including basement car parks in multi unit developments.

 

§ Gas is to be plumbed into the kitchen and living rooms and any other rooms as desired.

 

§ Open fire places are not to be installed.

 

§ External drying areas are to be available and readily accessible to all dwellings and sited to receive good winter sun and breezes.

 

§ Water flow reducing fittings or flow reduction valves are to be installed to all service outlets.

 

§ Windows and building layout should facilitate summer cooling by cross ventilation.  No dwelling is to rely solely on air-conditioning for thermal comfort.

 

§ At least 80% of dwelling units are to be cross ventilated and are to receive at least 3 hrs of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

§ A substantial part (at least 50%) of the principal open space area between the eastern and western buildings of the site is to receive at least 3 hours of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

§ Internal rooms reliant on artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation should be minimised.

 

§ Doors and windows and their openings are to have adequate means of draught control.

 

§ Where practical and appropriate, skylights and/or wind powered ventilators are installed to enhance natural light and ventilation.

 

§ Roof spaces are to be ventilated.

 

§ In all dwellings a maximum of 50% of lighting should be incandescent or low voltage.

 

§ Materials selection takes into account the life cycle effect of their manufacture, use and disposal.

 

§ The use of PVC is to be minimised.

 

§ The use of alternative energy sources such as rooftop photovoltaic cells to meet some of the dwellings’ electricity demand and sell back to the grid.

 

§ The use of light fittings with high efficiency reflectors suitable for compact florescent lamps or tubes (these consume four times less electricity than standard incandescent light bulbs, last eight times longer and provide the same level of light).

 

§ The use of dimmers for all lighting, automatic turn-off switches for outdoor lighting, motion-detectors for lighting external entrances and outdoor security, time switches for lighting in common areas, and solar powered lighting in common areas.

 

§ The use of energy efficient appliances.

 

Water Efficiency

 

§ A study for water efficiency will be prepared which demonstrates incorporation of water sensitive design measures including the use of water tanks for landscaping, toilet and laundry use, and grey water re-use.

 

§ Water efficient plumbing fixtures are to be integrated into the building design including, but not limited to dual flush toilets and low flow shower heads and tap roses (triple A rated).

 

§ In-sink food and waste disposal systems are not to be installed.

 

Environmental Education

 

§ An environmental education toolkit and resource package is to be provided for all residents detailing the design features and maintenance requirements for the sustainability features of the development, such as (but not limited to):

§ water conservation devices;

§ solar powered devices;

§ energy conservation devices;

§ composting; etc

 

Where practical maintenance, instructions are also to be attached to the particular feature, such as a rainwater tank.

 

Waste Management

 

§ Facilities for storing and collecting waste and recycling materials shall be provided in accordance with the “Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit Dwellings”, Resource NSW, February 2002.

 

§ Waste storage facilities for garbage and recycling containers in multi unit developments are to be provided either in a centralised garbage/recycling room accessible to garbage compactors or in a facility where bins can be easily wheeled to the street for collection. The facilities are of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage/recycling collection service.

 

§ The location and design of waste collection facilities are to complement the design of the development and not be visually obtrusive in the streetscape or visible from any public places.

 

§ Each dwelling in a multi-unit development is to have a waste storage cupboard in the kitchen that facilities the separation of recyclable materials. The cupboard is to be capable of holding at least a single day’s average waste and allow for source separation of garbage, recyclable and compostable material.

 

§ The design of landscaped areas is to provide for on-site composting.

 

§ Waste facilities should not be located between the front alignment of a building and the road.

 

Utilities/Site Facilities

 

§ Mailboxes are to be provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post. Mail boxes are to be integrated into the entrance way or entrance pathway to multi unit dwellings rather than along the fence facing the primary street frontage.

 

§ A suitably screened single common television/radio antenna (or other types of communication reception device) is to be provided to service all dwellings in a development.

 

§ Electricity services are to be provided in accordance with the requirements of Energy Australia. All electrical reticulation is to be underground. Meter boxes are to be placed in positions acceptable to the applicable energy service provider and screened from the street.

 

§ A reticulated gas supply to a meter for each dwelling and to optimum service points for cooking and space heating is to be provided.

 

§ Laundry and drying facilities shall include the following features :

 

§ A dedicated laundry is to be provided for each dwelling.

 

§ Outdoor clothes drying facilities are to be accessible to all residents and screened from the street and public places.

 

§ Alternatively, a retractable or demountable clothes line is to be provided in the courtyard or on a screened service balcony of each dwelling.

 

§ Communal secure bulk item storage facilities are to be provided in multi unit dwellings to store unwanted items that are awaiting clean up collection.

Storage

 

§ 8% of the floor space of each dwelling is to be provided for storage. Half of the storage area can be in garages, semi-basement enclosures or located externally. Internal storage areas may include linen cupboards, laundry cupboards, under stair areas and built in wardrobes, but kitchen and bathroom storage is excluded from the 8% calculation.

 

Barrier Free Access

 

§ The design of all new development other than the design of single dwelling houses is to provide special needs access. This includes access to and from public foyer areas, parking areas, and landscaped areas (including private open space for dwellings that have been nominated as adaptable dwellings).

 

§ Access for people with a disability is to be provided to and within dwellings of multi unit developments at the following minimum rates:

 

§ 0 – 14 dwellings           0

§ 15 – 29 dwellings         1

§ 30 – 44 dwellings         2

§ 45 – 60 dwellings         3 and so on.

 

§ The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be incorporated in special needs and adaptable dwelling designs.

 

§ Each dwelling that is designed to be accessible for people with a disability is to have a corresponding suitably located parking space designed for people with a disability.

 

§ All development that provides a passenger lift is to provide access for people with a disability to all common foyer and parking areas.

 

§ Publicly accessible areas within private developments are to be provided with facilities for access and mobility in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

The above listed measures are to be incorporated in the design of any future development application for the site.

 

9.6       Soil Contamination Issues

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 requires that appropriate and sufficient information be provided to indicate that land that is the subject of a development application is suitable for the proposed use. SEPP 55 requires Council to consider contamination issues in determining development applications. The Master Plan has not provided any information on the condition of the site in relation to contamination. Accordingly, the relevant sections of the Master Plan will be required to be amended to state and provide for the following at the development application stage:

 

§ A preliminary site contamination investigation identifying any past or present potentially contaminating activities on the site, a detailed appraisal of the site history, and results of a visual site inspection and assessment of the site will be undertaken. Where information on site contamination is limited, some soil sampling may be warranted to address the requirements of council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999.

 

§ Should the preliminary site contamination investigation reveal the existence of contamination, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of:

 

·    The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    EPA guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999;

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land;

·    DUAP/EPA Planning Guidelines 1997 - Managing Contaminated Land;

 

Should contamination be revealed on the site, the site will be required to be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. In the case of asbestos, where no standard exists, Council will require that the site be asbestos free or be remediated to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government authority. Council will require the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and ground water to certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan.

 

The applicant will also be required to deal with potential Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) issues given its location in proximity to land affected ASS as categorised in the Department of Land and Water Conservation’s ASS Planning Maps. Accordingly, the Master Plan should be amended to state and provide for the following at the development application stage:

 

§ Appropriate investigations will be undertaken to determine if the land is affected by the presence of Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) as outlined in Council’s “Advice on Acid Sulphate Soil” pamphlet. Should the proposed works for the development constitute works that present an environmental risk in relation to ASS, further investigations shall be undertaken to determine ASS impacts.

 

Apart from contamination issues, other matters relating to noise, environmental amenity, health and safety will be required to be addressed at the development application stage. 

 

9.7       Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Preliminary traffic details provided by the applicant indicate that the proposal will generate a total of approximately 50 vehicle trips per hour during the morning peak period (40 residential trips and 10 retail trips) and approximately 90 vehicle trips per hour during the afternoon peak period (40 residential trips and 50 retail trips). The report advises that when the existing Theo’s Liquor Store traffic is taken into account, only the residential trips will be additional trips on the external road network, which is considered low compared to background volumes. The applicant’s traffic consultant also advises that the intersection of Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue would operate at the same levels of service with moderate increases in delays for traffic generated only by the part of the proposal over the Theo’s Liquor Store site. Under these conditions, the proposed development can be accommodated with no improvements required to the external road network. However,  inclusion of traffic generated by the Australia Post site redevelopment will need to be assessed further and appropriate referrals to the RTA / SRDAC at the development application stage will be necessary.

 

The Master Plan was referred to the RTA for comments. No response was received from the RTA. Notwithstanding, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services have raised no objections to the Master Plan subject to appropriate details being provided at the development application stage and referral of any development application for the proposal to the SRDAC. A number of recommendations which are relevant to the development application stage have been made. Should late advice to the Master Plan be received from the RTA, this will be a matter to be addressed in future development applications for the subject site (see Part B – Matters to be Addressed in Future Development Applications).

 

Based on the proposal’s approximate apartment mix and retail floor area, the proposal will require a total of 142 car parking spaces for the proposed development. The Master Plan proposes 170 car parking spaces (136 spaces for the Theo Liquor Store site and 33 spaces in the Post Office site). Whilst this number may change as a consequence of the required variations to the Daunt Avenue frontage and tree planting bays in the eastern side setback (see Section 9.1 above), the carparking provisions will be adequate. Compliance with Council’s DCP – Carparking will be required as a matter to be addressed for future development applications. As such, surrounding residents’ concerns regarding potential increase in demand for on-street carparking by the proposed development are not considered warranted.

 

Concern has been raised by residents in that the access-point for the proposed development will be too close to intersection of Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue. Following meetings with Council’s officers, the applicant has indicated that, as a consequence of the necessary redesign to the Daunt Street frontage (see Section 9.1 above), the proposal will delete the proposed access point for the Post Office site and consolidate all vehicular access via the proposed access point on the Theo Liquor Store site. Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services raises no objection to the proposed vehicular access point subject to any future advice from the RTA/SRDAC at the development application stage.

 

9.8       Provision of Public Facilities

 

The proposed development is categorised as Major Development under Council’s Section 94 Contributions as it contains more than 50 dwellings. As such, Council may require the proposal to make provision, on or off site, for those facilities which Council normally requires a contribution.  Accordingly, assessment of the appropriate Section 94 contribution will be undertaken at the development application stage and may include the provision of landscaping works to Pillars Place and the provision of public toilets within the proposal.

 

9.9       Social Impact

 

The proposal is considered to increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone. The effect of the proposal is to bring more people to the site with an expected influx of second and third home buyers. The social impact of the proposal should be further augmented through the provision of affordable housing on-site. The developer has been advised of Council’s objectives for affordable housing and Council’s practice of requiring dedication of dwelling units for affordable housing from multi-unit housing developments that are subject of a Master Plan. A dedication of one unit has been requested of the applicant. The applicant has responded by proposing to develop a model with Council where the dwelling unit is managed by an appropriate Affordable Housing Service provider and unit ownership held by the developer or within an appropriate trust. A requirement has been applied for the provision of affordable housing in the development in the form of one dwelling unit as a variation to the master plan and as a matter to be addressed in future development applications for the site.

 

The added population on-site will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons in the Matraville Commercial Centre, which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of existing services in the locality.

 

 

9.10     Resident Submissions

 

§ Dilapidation report must be prepared to monitor potential damage from excavation and construction.

 

Should consent be granted for a development application for the proposal in the future, appropriate condition(s) will be applied requiring the preparation of dilapidation reports for all adjoining properties.

 

§ Potential damage and landfall from excavation on boundary.

 

Should consent be granted for a development application for the proposal in the future, appropriate condition(s) will be applied requiring adequate/mandatory protection and shoring measures for all excavation and earthworks on site.

 

§ Devaluation of property.

 

The issue of property valuation is not a matter for consideration in Master Plans under 40A(5) of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No. 17). Nevertheless, it is considered that the proposed development would have positive economic and social impacts on the Matraville Commercial Centre (see Section 9.3 above) which will be reflected in future property values throughout the centre.

 

§ Wrong description of outbuilding on objector’s property at No. 16 Pillars Place

 

The objector advises that the existing outbuilding at No. 16 Pillars Place is used as a bedroom and not as a garage. This correction is noted. The proposal will not have any detrimental impact on the outbuilding in terms of overshadowing and overlooking (see Section 9.3 above).

 

10.       VARIATIONS:

 

An assessment of the draft Master Plan together with the consideration of issues raised during the consultation process has identified a number of issues in the plan which require variations. The variations are discussed in the body of this report and are detailed in Part A – Schedule of Variations below.  These variations need to be incorporated in the revised Master Plan and be submitted to Council.

 

11.       RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         THAT Council Adopt the Master Plan for 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, subject to the variations and requirements outlined in Part A -Schedule of Variations of this report.

 

2.         THAT the applicant provide a revised Master Plan document, incorporating the variations in Part A - Schedule of Variations of this report, prior to the lodgement of any development application.

 

3.         THAT the applicant be advised that the issues specified in Part B – Matters to be addressed in Future Development Applications of this report be submitted with future development applications for the proposed development.

 

4.         THAT the Master Plan be adopted for 5 years from the date of its adoption being 24 June 2003.

 

Part A – Schedule of Variations

 

1.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to provide for a detailed list of design principles specifically addressing the proposed layout, orientation, building design envelope and amenity impacts of the proposed development including (but not limited to) the following:

 

1.1     Buildings to be designed in accordance with the building principles contained in Residential Flat Design Pattern Book – PlanningNSW and NSW Department of Public Works and Services.

 

1.2     Buildings are to be designed and aligned to reflect street corner conditions with appropriate architectural treatment and street hierarchy considerations.

 

1.3     All dwellings are to be designed to achieve cross-ventilation.

 

1.4     Building fronts and entries are to be readily apparent from the street and convey a sense of address. Building detailing and articulation must enable dwellings to be identified from the street.

 

1.5     Buildings are to be aligned predominantly parallel to the street boundary.

 

1.6     Building facades are to provide environmental amenity through sun shading devices, privacy screens and noise barriers combined with useable outdoor areas.

 

1.7     Ensure a safe physical environment by promoting crime prevention through design.

 

2.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to state that

 

§ the Master Plan and future Development Applications for the site shall be substantially in accordance with the height, building envelope, footprint and setbacks shown in the plans No. MP-01 dated 12/5/03, MP-02 dated 13/5/03, MP-03 dated 13/5/03, and MP-04 dated 13/5/03, submitted with the Master Plan

 

§ the elevation and floorplans in the plans No. MP-01 dated 12/5/03, MP-02 dated 13/5/03, MP-03 dated 13/5/03, and MP-04 dated 13/5/03, submitted with the Master Plan shall be indicative only with details to be provided at the Development Application Stage.

 

3.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to show an appropriate redesign to the Daunt Street frontage including, but not limited to, the following

 

§ Provision of wrap-around retail uses on the Daunt Street frontage.

§ Introduction of an appropriate architectural treatment to the Daunt Avenue frontage consistent with the list of design principles in requirement No. 1 (Part A- Schedule of Variations) above.

§ Deletion of the vehicular access point in the Post Office site and consolidation into one.

 

4.         The relevant section of the Master Plan  be amended to show provision of public toilet facilities within the proposed development.

 

5.         The relevant section of the Master Plan be amended to incorporate the provision of affordable housing in the proposed development in the form of one dwelling unit.

 

6.         Section 5 (page 12 of the Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue Master Plan report) be amended to state that access to and through the central courtyard for all future residents of the proposed development will be provided to permit and facilitate circulation between the eastern building and Bunnerong Road  and vice-versa.

 

7.         Section 6 (page 13 of the Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue Master Plan report) be amended to state that the existing public reserve on Pillars Place is to be provided with appropriate landscaping works including, but not limited to, the provision of a pedestrian path through the reserve and the proposal’s deep soil landscaped zone to provide a pedestrian link between Pillars Place and Daunt Avenue.

 

8.         The Master Plan be amended to create a new section entitled Ecologically Sustainable Development to contain the following measures:

 

Energy Efficiency

 

§ A study detailing the most appropriate hot water heating system for the proposed development having regard to maximum reduction in green house gases together with any options for renewable energy use.

 

§ Building materials, appliances and fuel sources are to be selected to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

 

§ Buildings are to have an area of roof with appropriate orientation and pitch, suitable for installing solar collectors.

 

§ All developments shall have adequate insulation to the recommended level Australian Standard 2627 – 1993 “Thermal insulation of dwellings”.

 

§ Buildings are to be made of materials that have a higher thermal mass value such as bricks, concrete and stone. Where timber is used it is to be plantation, recycled or regrowth timber. No rainforest or old growth timber is to be used.

 

§ Three or more storey developments are to demonstrate energy efficient design achieving a NatHERS rating of not less than 4.5 stars. Any non-compliance with the rating nominated is to be justified in a report prepared by an expert in this area that comprehensively assesses the energy performance of the building and demonstrates compliance with the objectives of these controls.

 

§ Energy efficient lighting and control systems are to be provided in all common and outdoor areas including basement car parks in multi unit developments.

 

§ Gas is to be plumbed into the kitchen and living rooms and any other rooms as desired.

 

§ Open fire places are not to be installed.

 

§ External drying areas are to be available and readily accessible to all dwellings and sited to receive good winter sun and breezes.

 

§ Water flow reducing fittings or flow reduction valves are to be installed to all service outlets.

 

§ Windows and building layout should facilitate summer cooling by cross ventilation.  No dwelling is to rely solely on air-conditioning for thermal comfort.

 

§ At least 80% of dwelling units are to be cross ventilated and are to receive at least 3 hrs of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

§ A substantial part (at least 50%) of the principal open space area between the eastern and western buildings of the site is to receive at least 3 hours of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

§ Internal rooms reliant on artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation should be minimised.

 

§ Doors and windows and their openings are to have adequate means of draught control.

 

§ Where practical and appropriate, skylights and/or wind powered ventilators are installed to enhance natural light and ventilation.

 

§ Roof spaces are to be ventilated.

 

§ In all dwellings a maximum of 50% of lighting should be incandescent or low voltage.

 

§ As part of any future development application/construction certificate process for the site a public utility impact As part of any future development application/construction certificate process for the site a public utility impact Materials selection takes into account the life cycle effect of their manufacture, use and disposal.

 

§ The use of PVC is to be minimised.

 

§ The use of alternative energy sources such as rooftop photovoltaic cells to meet some of the dwellings’ electricity demand and sell back to the grid.

 

§ The use of light fittings with high efficiency reflectors suitable for compact florescent lamps or tubes (these consume four times less electricity than standard incandescent light bulbs, last eight times longer and provide the same level of light).

 

§ The use of dimmers for all lighting, automatic turn-off switches for outdoor lighting, motion-detectors for lighting external entrances and outdoor security, time switches for lighting in common areas, and solar powered lighting in common areas.

 

§ The use of energy efficient appliances.

 

Water Efficiency

 

§ A study for water efficiency will be prepared which demonstrates incorporation of water sensitive design measures including the use of water tanks for landscaping, toilet and laundry use, and grey water re-use.

 

§ Water efficient plumbing fixtures are to be integrated into the building design including, but not limited to dual flush toilets and low flow shower heads and tap roses (triple A rated).

 

§ In-sink food and waste disposal systems are not to be installed.

 

Environmental Education

 

§ An environmental education toolkit and resource package is to be provided for all residents detailing the design features and maintenance requirements for the sustainability features of the development, such as (but not limited to):

 

§ water conservation devices;

§ solar powered devices;

§ energy conservation devices;

§ composting; etc

 

Where practical maintenance, instructions are also to be attached to the particular feature, such as a rainwater tank.

 

Waste Management

 

§ Facilities for storing and collecting waste and recycling materials shall be provided in accordance with the “Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit Dwellings”, Resource NSW, February 2002.

 

§ Waste storage facilities for garbage and recycling containers in multi unit developments are to be provided either in a centralised garbage/recycling room accessible to garbage compactors or in a facility where bins can be easily wheeled to the street for collection. The facilities are of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage/recycling collection service.

 

§ The location and design of waste collection facilities are to complement the design of the development and not be visually obtrusive in the streetscape or visible from any public places.

 

§ Each dwelling in a multi-unit development is to have a waste storage cupboard in the kitchen that facilities the separation of recyclable materials. The cupboard is to be capable of holding at least a single day’s average waste and allow for source separation of garbage, recyclable and compostable material.

 

§ The design of landscaped areas is to provide for on-site composting.

 

§ Waste facilities should not be located between the front alignment of a building and the road.

 

Utilities/Site Facilities

 

§ Mailboxes are to be provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post. Mail boxes are to be integrated into the entrance way or entrance pathway to multi unit dwellings rather than along the fence facing the primary street frontage.

 

§ A suitably screened single common television/radio antenna (or other types of communication reception device) is to be provided to service all dwellings in a development.

 

§ Electricity services are to be provided in accordance with the requirements of Energy Australia. All electrical reticulation is to be underground. Meter boxes are to be placed in positions acceptable to the applicable energy service provider and screened from the street.

 

§ A reticulated gas supply to a meter for each dwelling and to optimum service points for cooking and space heating is to be provided.

 

§ Laundry and drying facilities shall include the following features :

 

§ A dedicated laundry is to be provided for each dwelling.

 

§ Outdoor clothes drying facilities are to be accessible to all residents and screened from the street and public places.

 

§ Alternatively, a retractable or demountable clothes line is to be provided in the courtyard or on a screened service balcony of each dwelling.

 

§ Communal secure bulk item storage facilities are to be provided in multi unit dwellings to store unwanted items that are awaiting clean up collection.

 

Storage

 

§ 8% of the floor space of each dwelling is to be provided for storage. Half of the storage area can be in garages, semi-basement enclosures or located externally. Internal storage areas may include linen cupboards, laundry cupboards, under stair areas and built in wardrobes, but kitchen and bathroom storage is excluded from the 8% calculation.

 

Barrier Free Access

 

§ The design of all new development other than the design of single dwelling houses is to provide special needs access. This includes access to and from public foyer areas, parking areas, and landscaped areas (including private open space for dwellings that have been nominated as adaptable dwellings).

 

§ Access for people with a disability is to be provided to and within dwellings of multi unit developments at the following minimum rates:

 

§ 0 – 14 dwellings           0

§ 15 – 29 dwellings         1

§ 30 – 44 dwellings         2

§ 45 – 60 dwellings         3 and so on.

 

§ The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be incorporated in special needs and adaptable dwelling designs.

 

§ Each dwelling that is designed to be accessible for people with a disability is to have a corresponding suitably located parking space designed for people with a disability.

 

§ All development that provides a passenger lift is to provide access for people with a disability to all common foyer and parking areas.

 

§ Publicly accessible areas within private developments are to be provided with facilities for access and mobility in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

§ The above listed measures are to be incorporated in the design of any future development application for the site. The Master Plan will also be required to be amended such that the ESD principles of precautionary approach, intergenerational equity and conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity are applied to each of the above-listed measures to further confirm their ecological value.

 

9.         The Master Plan be amended to create a new section to state the following measures:

 

§ A preliminary site contamination investigation identifying any past or present potentially contaminating activities on the site, a detailed appraisal of the site history, and results of a visual site inspection and assessment of the site will be undertaken. Where information on site contamination is limited, some soil sampling may be warranted. To address the requirements of council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999.

 

§ Should the preliminary site contamination investigation reveal the existence of contamination, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of:

 

·    The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    EPA guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999;

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land;

·    DUAP/EPA Planning Guidelines 1997 - Managing Contaminated Land;

 

Should contamination be revealed on the site, the site will be required to be remediated to current and safe standards appropriate to the future and on-going use of the land. In the case of asbestos, where no standard exists, Council will require that the site be asbestos free or be remediated to a level where no unacceptable health risk remains as confirmed by the relevant State and/or Commonwealth Government authority. Council will require the submission of a Site Audit Statement (SAS) and a Summary Site Audit Report for both land and ground water to certify that the site is suitable for unrestricted landuses as identified in the Master Plan.

 

§ Appropriate investigations shall be undertaken to determine if the land is affected by the presence of Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) as outlined in Council’s “Advice on Acid Sulphate Soil” leaflet. Should the proposed works for the development constitute works that present an environmental risk in relation to ASS, further investigations shall be undertaken to determine ASS impacts.

 

Part B – Matters to be addressed/submitted in Future Development Applications

 

1.         Demonstrated consistency with all the requirements and variations of the approved Master Plan such that:

 

§ the Development Application proposal shall be substantially in accordance with the height, building envelope, footprint and setbacks shown in the plans No. MP-01 dated 12/5/03, MP-02 dated 13/5/03, MP-03 dated 13/5/03, and MP-04 dated 13/5/03, submitted with the Master Plan

 

§ the elevation and floorplans in the plans No. MP-01 dated 12/5/03, MP-02 dated 13/5/03, MP-03 dated 13/5/03, and MP-04 dated 13/5/03, submitted with the Master Plan shall be indicative only with details to be provided at the Development Application Stage.

 

2.         The design of the proposal will be consistent with the list of design principles required under requirement No. 1 in Part A – Schedule of Variations of this report.

 

3.         Design details to permit and facilitate access to and through the central courtyard for all residents of the proposal including, but not limited to, through site circulation for future residents from the eastern building to Bunnerong Road at the proposed arcade entrance point and vice-versa.

 

4.         Details of the design of all footpaths showing that footpaths will be suitable for disabled and older persons to be submitted.

 

5.         Details of appropriate landscaping works in the existing public reserve on Pillars Place including, but not limited to, the provision of a pedestrian path through the reserve to integrate with the proposal’s deep soil landscaped zone to provide a pedestrian link between Pillars Place and Daunt Avenue.

 

6.         Details of public toilet facilities within the proposed development.

 

7.         Details of the provision of affordable housing in the proposed development in the form of one dwelling unit.

 

8.         Details of privacy screens on all east-facing balconies in the eastern building. 

 

9.         Details indicating that at least 80% of dwelling units are to be cross-ventilated and are to receive at least 3 hrs of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

10.       Details indicating that a substantial part (at least 50%) of the principal open space area between the eastern and western buildings of the site is to receive at least 3 hours of direct solar access on 21 June.

 

11.       An acoustic report be prepared to address acoustic issues including, but not limited to, noise levels to residential units from traffic, acoustics between other sole occupancy residential and commercial units and noise from plant and equipment.

 

12.       Demonstrated consistency with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as stated in the revised Master Plan.

 

13.       A preliminary site contamination investigation identifying any past or present potentially contaminating activities on the site, a detailed appraisal of the site history, and results of a visual site inspection and assessment of the site will be undertaken. Where information on site contamination is limited, some soil sampling may be warranted to address the requirements of council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999. Should the preliminary site contamination investigation reveal the existence of contamination, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of:

 

·    The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    EPA guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

·    Council's Contaminated Land Policy 1999;

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land;

·    DUAP/EPA Planning Guidelines 1997 - Managing Contaminated Land;

 

14.       Appropriate investigations to determine if the land is affected by the presence of Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) as outlined in Council’s “Advice on Acid Sulphate Soil” pamphlet. Should the proposed works for the development constitute works that present an environmental risk in relation to ASS, further investigations shall be undertaken to determine ASS impacts.

 

15.       Demonstrated compliance with Council’s DCP and AS 2890.1-1993 in relation to car parking numbers, layout, dimensions, internal circulation ramps, widths and grades, and bicycle facilities.

 

16.       Details to demonstrate that any requirements of the Roads Traffic Authority/Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee are met.

 

17.       Details of measures to promote and achieve energy efficiency in the design, construction and use of housing; promote the use of re-usable, recyclable and renewable resources in construction; promote reductions in energy costs in demolition and construction, promote the use of passive solar design; and protect solar access of each proposed dwelling.

 

18.       Details of an environmental education toolkit and resource package is to be provided for all residents detailing the design features and maintenance requirements for the sustainability features of the development, such as (but not limited to):

§ rainwater tanks;

§ water conservation devices;

§ solar powered devices;

§ energy conservation devices;

§ composting; etc

Where practical maintenance instructions are also to be attached to the particular feature, such as a rainwater tank.

19.       Details of landscaping and landscape design for the site which will include both deep planting zones and podium courtyards.

 

20.       Details of the size of bays for trees in the eastern setback which shall be increased to adequately accommodate the proposed trees.

 

21.       A public utility impact assessment for 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.

 

22.       Details showing all public utility services located within the development site shall be suitably located underground and in compliance with the requirements/conditions imposed by the various service authorities.

 

23.       Detailed waste management plan setting out the proposed method for collection of domestic waste for the development site. The applicant shall note that satisfactory collection of domestic waste may require minor alterations/modifications to the proposed road network and or travel lane/footpath/parking lane configuration of the road network.

 

24.       Details of drainage incorporating the following:

 

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

 

b.   Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development.

 

c.   Sufficient geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed development would have any affect on, or be affected by, the existing groundwater conditions. As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table and/or affected by the movement of seepage water any basement carpark or similar structure may need to be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

d.   Any proposed drainage easement should be of sufficient width to accommodate a pipeline capable of draining stormwater flows for up to the 1 in 20 year storm event and conveying overland flows for storms up to the 1 in 100 year event.

 

25.       Details of traffic/civil works incorporating the following:

 

a.   The applicant shall be responsible for meeting the full cost for all civil works required in the streets fronting the development site, including but not limited to the following:

 

§ New vehicular crossings opposite the proposed vehicular entry/exit points.

 

§ Removal of any redundant vehicular crossings and reinstatement of the areas.

 

§ Footpath works along the Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road site frontages, such works to be in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville.

 

b.   All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level, splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre or suitably setback 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.

 

c.   Consolidation of the two proposed vehicular entry/exit points for the site into a single entry/exit point, with such entry/exit point to be located a suitable distance from the signalised intersection at Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road.

 

d.   The existing dedicated splay corner at the intersection of Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road shall be increased to a minimum of 3 metres by 3 metres and any development application submission should be prepared on the basis of the larger splay.

 

26.       Details of waste management incorporating the following:

 

a.   A detailed assessment of the waste management for the site.

 

b.   Provision of a minimum 55 x 240 litre recycle bins for the residential component of the development. The residential component of the site would also need to provide for 55 x 240 litre garbage bins or an equivalent system, (eg a compactor unit/s may be incorporated in the waste management strategy).

 

c.   The retail/commercial waste storage area should be suitably sized and separated from the residential bin storage area/s.

 

27.       Details of landscaping incorporating the following:

 

a.   Detailed landscape design plans for the site will need to be submitted and approved as part of the assessment of any future development application and/or construction certificate application for the site.

 

b.   The Daunt Avenue and Bunnerong Road site frontages shall be the subject of street tree planting in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan. The applicant should liaise with Council regarding openings within the awning/design of the awning prior to lodgement of a development application for the site. The street tree species for Bunnerong Road would be Eucalyptus robusta “ Swamp Mahogany”.

 

c.   A landscape design for the Bunnerong Road and Daunt Avenue street frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville Commercial Centre shall be prepared. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

d.   Approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property.

 

e.   Any substation required shall be located within the site and screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

28.       Details of landscaping incorporating the following:

 

a.   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 1.  Master Report prepared by Smyth Planning, Allen Jack & Cottier Architects received by Council on 29 April 2003

b.   2.  A4 Attachments include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

d.   Any electricity substation required for the site is to be located within the site and is to be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant is to liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging a development application to determine if an electricity substation will be required for the development, (the master plan submission makes provision for an electricity substation).

 

e.   The applicant should be advised that as part of any development consent for the site Council may require the applicant to meet the cost for Energy Australia to either bundle all the overhead power lines fronting the site along Daunt Avenue or to underground the subject cables.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Master Report prepared by Smyth Planning, Allen Jack & Cottier Architects received by Council on 29 April 2003

2.  A4 Attachments

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor Matthews – Proposed Kerb, Guttering and Footpath for Moorina Ave, Matraville. (R/0542/01 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council have included in the next estimates kerb and guttering and a footpath in Moorina Avenue, Matraville.

 

11.2     By Councillor Matson – Incorporation of Judge Street into Randwick Parking Study Management Strategy Plan.  (R/0423/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council reconsider the recently adopted Randwick Parking Study Management Strategy Plan with a view to providing either a resident preferred parking scheme or increased parking restrictions and/or fees to those remaining streets of the “Randwick Study Area” immediately to the east of the area identified as “area 7.”

 

11.3     By Councillor Matson – Refurbishment of South Maroubra Village Green.  (W/000400 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report come back to the next Council meeting detailing why the original plans agreed on at the South Maroubra Green Consultation meeting on August 26th were changed and why these amended plans were not circulated to residents for further consideration.

 

11.4          By Councillor Matson – Opposition to Federal Government Legislative Initiatives on UNSW Unionism.  (D/1002/2002 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council will as a priority write to the Federal Minister for Education stating support for the continuation of comprehensive student unionism at UNSW and our opposition to the offering of individual contracts to its academic staff.

 

11.5          By Councillor Matson – Side Door at 22A  Pauling Avenue, Coogee.  (P/016545 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council clarifies whether the side door presently being constructed to the car port at 22A Pauling Avenue, Coogee is a breach of Council’s consent and whether it conflicts with the intent of the resolution of 11th February, 2003.

 

11.6          By Councillor Matson – Deregulation of UNSW Student Fees.  (98/S/0338 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council will call on the Federal Minister for Education to abandon proposals to deregulate staff contracts and fees at universities, allow increases in the number of full fee paying students and to stringently limit the time for which the government will fund a student.