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

 

 

18th July, 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, 22ND JULY, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3            Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 24TH JUNE, 2003.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 8TH JULY, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Report

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2003 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

2

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 33/2003 - ROSSITER AVENUE, MAROUBRA - ROAD CONDITION.

4

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 34/2003 - FITZGERALD AVENUE, MAROUBRA - PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES OUTSIDE HEFFRON PARK NETBALL COURTS.

6

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 35/2003 - LOCAL ROAD REHABILITATION INCLUDING ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAMME.

10

 


 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 36/2003 - 2003/2004 REGIONAL ROADS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME BLOCK GRANT.

12

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 37/2003 - 'MAROUBRA MALL' TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR STORMWATER AND SEWER DIVERSION WORKS.

14

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 15/2003  SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE & COUNCIL MEETINGS - SEPTEMBER 2003 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) ACT.

25

 

 

9           Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 52/2003 - RANDWICK ENVIRONMENTAL PARK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT.

27

 

9.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 53/2003 - 11 TOWER STREET, COOGEE.

30

77

9.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 54/2003 - SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN- EXHIBITION AND REPORTING ON THE DRAFT AMENDMENT APPLYING TO KENSINGTON TOWN CENTRE.

77

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Shade Cloth Sun Protection to all playgrounds in Randwick City.

89

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Safety in Children’s Playground in Randwick City.

89

11.3

By Councillor Seng – Urban Water Management System.

89

11.4

By Councillor Seng – Recruitment of new General Manager. 

89

11.5

By Councillor Seng – Selection Committee for Recruitment of new General Manager.

89

11.6

By Councillor Seng – Specialist Recruitment firm for new General Manager. 

89

11.7

By Councillor Seng – Remuneration Package for new General Manager.

89

11.8

By Councillor Matthews – Abolishing Stamp Duty for first home buyers. 

90

11.9

By Councillor Whitehead – Report on Recruitment of new General Manager. 

90

 


 

12          Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

14 July, 2003

FILE NO:

P/003528 xr P/002151 xr 98/S/1803 xr P/001105 xr P/001615 xr P/003369 xr P/001345 xr P/001377

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Coogee Bowling Club Ltd for the property known as Coogee Bowling Club at Dolphin St Coogee. Council is the Trustee of J.V. Dick Reserve (D500159) Reserve Trust dedicated on 28 April 1944 for the purpose of public recreation. The lease is for the term 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008.

2.         Randwick Information & Community Centre for a two month Commercial Lease Agreement for the purpose of temporary accommodation during refurbishment works of Bowen Library, of an information centre, training area and consultation rooms including neighbourhood and community centre at 26-28 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, to 20 September 2003.

3.         Irfan Kuroz & Elif Kuroz for a five year commercial lease for airspace above 186 Arden Street, Coogee, to 30 September 2007.

4.         Lucas Andrews & Maria Andrews and Mr Jia Guo Yin for assignment of the commercial lease for the term of five years commencing 2 August 2003 for the property located at 28 Silver Street, Randwick  (tobacconist).

5.         Ester Rayner (T/As Rousseau’s on Randwick) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Avoca Street, Randwick.

6.         Jeremy Charles Lavis (T/As The Globe Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 203 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

7.         John Carter (T/As Coogee Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 221 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.         The lease agreement between Council as the Trustee of J.V. Dick Reserve (D500159) and Coogee Bowling Club Ltd.

2.         The Commercial Lease agreement between Council and Randwick Information & Community Centre at 26-28 Waratah Avenue, Randwick..

3.         The Commercial Lease between Council and Irfan Kuroz & Elif Kuroz for the airspace above 186 Arden Street, Coogee.

4.         The Deed of Consent to Assignment of Commercial Lease to Lucas Andrews & Maria Andrews and Mr Jia Guo Yin at 28 Silver Street, Randwick  (tobacconist).

5.         The Outdoor Dining Licence between Council and Ester Rayner (T/As Rousseau’s on Randwick) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Avoca Street, Randwick.

6.         The Outdoor Dining Licence between Council and Jeremy Charles Lavis (T/As The Globe Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 203 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

7.         The Outdoor Dining Licence between Council and John Carter (T/As Coogee Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 221 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 33/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROSSITER AVENUE, MAROUBRA - ROAD CONDITION

 

 

DATE:

1 July, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0655/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A petition regarding the condition of Rossiter Avenue, Maroubra, has been received from residents of Rossiter Avenue and surrounding streets.

 

ISSUES:

 

The residents have noted the deterioration of Rossiter Avenue, and have requested the inclusion of Rossiter Avenue  in the 2003-2004 road rehabilitation programme.

 

Council operates an accredited Pavement Maintenance Management System (PMS), which is utilised to optimise and prioritise expenditure on Council’s roads to provide the greatest level of benefit to the entire community. Roads have a higher strategic importance to Randwick’s Transport Infrastructure over laneways, due to higher community usage, and this is reflected in the prioritising of work projects.

 

Council’s PMS relies on regular testing and updating of road pavement conditions to ensure prioritisation of works is based on current information. Council officers also investigate reports of poor road condition from the public to verify the accuracy of the PMS.

 

Rossiter Avenue would be due for network testing in 2003-2004. However, Council’s Asset Engineer has inspected Rossiter Avenue in response to the petition to verify the recorded information in the PMS. The surface condition of the pavement is poor and following comparison with sections prioritised by the PMS, inclusion in the 2003-2004 road rehabilitation programme is warranted.    

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The surface condition of Rossiter Avenue is poor, and is included in the Draft 2003-2004 road rehabilitation programme.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:    

 

(1)        The petition be noted.

 

(2)        The head petitioner be informed of the contents of the Director Asset and   Infrastructure’s Report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 34/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

FITZGERALD AVENUE, MAROUBRA - PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES OUTSIDE HEFFRON PARK NETBALL COURTS

 

 

DATE:

14 July, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0294/02    

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting on 27th May 2003 resolved that:

 

1.         Council officers prepare, and return to Council as a matter of urgency, a traffic management plan to control traffic and parking problems adjacent to Heffron Park netball fields on Saturday mornings, with respect to Saturday morning netball; and

 

2.         Council adopt in principal the provision of traffic control measures to provide for left turn into and left turn out only, from the netball fields at Heffron Park onto and from Fitzgerald Avenue and that the matter be referred to the Traffic Committee immediately.

 

ISSUES:

 

In regard to part (1) of Council’s resolution for a traffic management plan adjacent to the netball fields, it is considered that any such plan should conform with the overall Plan of Management for Heffron Park.  A plan is therefore being developed in consultation with Council’s Parks and Recreation Co-ordinator and Traffic Committee.  This will form the basis of a future report to Council.

 

In regard to part (2) of Council’s resolution, it is reported that on Saturday mornings, and particularly during sporting seasons, a large number of vehicles entering into and exiting from Heffron Park cause traffic congestion in the vicinity of the combined entry and exit driveway of the Park.

 

This driveway is uncontrolled at present, and large number of right turning vehicles, combined with illegal angle parking in the vicinity, create a severe traffic congestion and hazard, and downgrade the general amenity of the area.

 

Fitzgerald Avenue is a major local road and carries large volumes of traffic on Saturday mornings. Between Anzac Parade and Bunnerong Road, it is subject to 50 kph and 40 kph speed limits on the eastern and western sections respectively.

 

With a view to alleviating the problems caused by right turning traffic to and from the Park, the following traffic control measures were considered: Seagull islands; a median island outside the combined entry/exit driveway of the Park; a roundabout; and traffic control signals.

 

It is considered that a most effective treatment that would comply with Council’s adopted principal of providing for left turn in and left turn out only from Heffron Park, would be the provision of a median island. The proposal has been supported by the Police and RTA, and subsequently endorsed by the Traffic Committee. However, the Committee has suggested that the proposed median island be constructed in temporary materials as a trial measure with a view to assessing its effectiveness and impact on the surrounding street system during the current netball season.

 

It is anticipated that the proposed median would invite complaints from local residents concerning:

 

·          Limiting access to residents of Wild Street;

·          Shifting the problem of traffic hazard to the Robey Street intersection and additional traffic circulation on surrounding local streets.

 

Residents of Wild Street would not be seriously affected by the proposal, as alternative access will still be maintained through Paine Street and Walsh Avenue.

 

Any adverse impact at the Robey Street intersection and on surrounding streets could be monitored during the trial. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is therefore concluded that a most practical, viable and cost effective treatment would be the provision of a median island, together with minor modifications to existing signposting and line marking outside the entrance to Heffron Park, as shown on the attached sketch.

 

Council could consider construction of the facility in permanent materials as part of next year’s Capital Works Program should the trial prove successful in alleviating traffic hazards in the vicinity of the entrance to Heffron Park and not impact adversely on the surrounding street system.

 

The following recommendation is therefore submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The proposal to construct a median island in temporary materials, together with minor modifications to existing signposting and line marking, outside the entrance to Heffron Park, as shown on the attached diagram, be approved as a trial with a view to assessing the effectiveness and impact of these traffic control measures on the surrounding street system during the current netball season;

 

2.         Should the above trial measures prove successful, the construction of the traffic facility in permanent materials be considered by Council for inclusion in the 2004/2005 Capital Works Program.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Sketch showing proposed Median Island

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 35/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL ROAD REHABILITATION INCLUDING ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAMME

 

 

DATE:

15 July, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3626

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has allocated $1,600,000 for the rehabilitation of local roads in the 2003-2004 financial year.

 

In addition $401,052 is available for local road rehabilitation under the Federal Government’s Roads to Recovery Programme. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The process for asset management decisions for the road network, combines community feedback, the pavement management system (PMS), and project level assessment.

 

Road sections suggested for treatment by community requests, are inspected and their condition confirmed on the PMS. Consequently, these sections may be flagged for further investigation and assessment.  This provides a customer based verification of  PMS data in addition to routine condition collection.

 

The PMS provides a mechanism for prioritising the approximately 1400 road sections into a manageable subset for assessment and works programme development.

 

The project level assessment considers site constraints which may affect the feasibility of a treatment; the requirement for further testing to confirm the type of treatment; and the requirement for more detailed analysis for the design of a treatment.

 

Council at its meeting 28 August 2001, resolved that the 2001/2002 and deferred 2000/2001 Roads to Recovery Programme allocations be implemented in accordance with the priorities listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 63/2001.

 

Re-phased funding in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 has resulted in three of the five identified projects being completed under the programme. Since original identification, inspection and investigation has revealed projects located at Houston Road, Kingsford and Boundary Road, Clovelly have deteriorated at a lesser rate than other network sections, and should be deferred to the 2004-2005 Roads to Recovery Programme.

 

It is proposed that the following projects, which were deferred from the 2002-2003 Local Roads Rehabilitation Programme, be prioritised for completion under the Roads to Recovery Programme 2003-2004 allocation.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Local road rehabilitation in 2003-2004 has been prioritised utilising Council’s Pavement Management System, and comprehensive road pavement inspections.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.         Council delegate to the Mayor and General Manager approval to finalise the Roads Rehabilitation Programme in accordance with the recommendations from Council’s Pavement Management System.

 

2.         The projects, which were deferred from the 2002-2003 Local Roads Rehabilitation Programme, be prioritised for completion under the Roads to Recovery Programme 2003-2004 allocation.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 36/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003/2004 REGIONAL ROADS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME BLOCK GRANT

 

 

DATE:

2 July, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0813

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Advice has been received from the Roads and Traffic Authority that the annual funding for the maintenance of regional roads to Council under agreement for Block Grant of Assistance to Council for 2003/2004 is $200,000.

 

This Agreement is similar in content to that of last year with the $200,000 being the sum total of two components being Roads and Ex 3x3. The  “Ex 3x3 Council Determined” component has been provided as a component of the Block Grant, following cessation of the 3x3 Council determined program. This “Ex 3 x3” component is available for road works as determined by Council on Regional Roads.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority has also offered $176,000 for the Traffic Facilities component. The works under Traffic facilities would include traffic signs, line marking and maintenance and installation of new facilities on Regional and Local Roads. The Council in the past has not accepted the Traffic Facilities grant and the Roads and Traffic authority has been responsible for carrying out the required maintenance.

 

The reasons for not accepting the grant are as follows

 

1.         In the past, due to lack of funding the Roads and Traffic Authority has not carried out the required level of maintenance. Because of this the existing traffic facilities are not all in a satisfactory condition.  If Council accepts this grant it will also have to accept the responsibility of maintaining an infrastructure that has not been satisfactorily maintained and this could involve Council accepting a liability currently assumed by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

 

2.         Allocating staff from Council’s own resources would be necessary to supervise and carry out new signs and markings and maintenance works.

 

Council has undertaken a full inventory of signs on behalf of the Roads and Traffic Authority, discussions between Councils and the Roads and Traffic Authority are continuing with regard to future arrangements concerning traffic facility funding.

 

Until such time as alternative arrangements are agreed upon, it is recommended that the traffic facilities component not be accepted.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

If Council wishes to participate in the Block Grant’s arrangements for 2003/2004 accepting the conditions of the grant and notifying the RTA accordingly is necessary. The conditions are the same as those applied in previous years and acceptance is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.         Council accept the Block Grant of $200,000 for Regional Roads Maintenance Programme 2003/2004.

 

2.         The Agreement of Block Grant of Assistance to Council for Regional Roads be executed and forwarded to Road and Traffic Authority.

 

3.         Council not accept the Traffic Facility grant of $176,000 and notify the Roads and Traffic Authority accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

2003/2004 Regional Roads Block Grant Agreement. (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 37/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

'MAROUBRA MALL' TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR STORMWATER AND SEWER DIVERSION WORKS

 

 

DATE:

15 July, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Redevelopment of the Maroubra Mall Centre for a new mixed use residential and commercial / retail development has been approved by Council.

 

To facilitate the development, a portion of Piccadilly Place has been purchased from Council and the existing stormwater line that runs down Piccadilly Place from Anzac Parade to Bruce Bennetts Place is being diverted around the development site.

 

Part of the proposed diversion involves installing a new 1650mm diameter pipeline in Boyce Road together with a new box culvert (approximately 900mm x 750mm).

 

When the new pipeline (and culvert) reach Bruce Bennetts Place, the size of the pipeline will increase to 1800mm before continuing in southerly direction down Bruce Bennetts Place to Piccadilly Place.  To reduce the extent of flooding in Bruce Bennett’s Place, a new 1500mm diameter pipeline is also being installed in Walsh Avenue.

 

As well as the storm water diversion, it should be noted that the sewer mains currently traversing the development site must also be diverted to the satisfaction of Sydney Water.

 

An application has now been received from Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited for the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan to facilitate the abovementioned stormwater and sewer mains diversion works.

 

There will be three principal areas of work, namely:

 

*          AREA A - Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road:

 

            Installation of large new stormwater lines and pits along Bruce Bennetts Place (northwards of Piccadilly Place) and Boyce Road (between Bruce Bennetts Place and Anzac Parade).  This area of work will also involve a sewer diversion in the eastern portion of Boyce Road (just west of Anzac Parade);

 

(Program for the work: From week 1 through to week12)

 

*          AREA B – Anzac Parade Central island car park area:

 

Installation of a new stormwater line across the north bound carriageway of Anzac Parade and along the central island area to new pits connecting to existing lines opposite Green Street.  This area of work will include a new sewer line running diagonally across the northbound carriageway of Anzac Parade and the central island area;

 

(Program for the work: From week 1 through to week 9)

 

*          AREA C - Walsh Avenue:       

 

Installation of new section of stormwater lines along Walsh Avenue southwards from Maroubra Road.

 

            (Program for the work: From week 5 through to week 12)

 

These areas of work are shown ‘schematically’ on the attached plan.  The work in Area A will be all ‘open cut’ involving excavation which will reduce the width of Boyce Road connection (between the Anzac Parade carriageways).  The work in Area C will be undertaken by ‘open cut’ involving excavations up to 4.0m deep.

 

The new stormwater lines and pits will be extremely large and the working areas required will necessitate the reduction of available road widths in the affected sections of Walsh Avenue, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road, as well as requiring the closure of the Anzac Parade central island car park in front of the proposed development during the construction work.

 

A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has been prepared by traffic consultants Transport and Traffic Planning Associates, on behalf of the developer Abigroup Constructions, in support of the necessary temporary partial closures of streets. 

 

State Transit bus route 316 will be affected and the southbound route along Walsh Avenue will need to be diverted.

 

In summary, the following changes to existing traffic and parking conditions are proposed in the Traffic Management Plan:

 

1.         Introduction of one way traffic along Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road, between Piccadilly Place and Anzac Parade, closing off the eastern and southern parts of those roads retaining one traffic lane only;

 

2.         Prohibition of the right turn movement from Anzac Parade (southbound) to Boyce Road;

3.         Temporary removal of the roundabout at the Bruce Bennetts Place / Piccadilly Place intersection, and banning the right turn from Piccadilly Place;

 

4.         Elimination of kerbside parking apart from the proposed WORKS ZONE (outside 89-91 Boyce Road) just north of Piccadilly Place, and provision of three parking spaces opposite residential flats at 112-114 Boyce Road;

 

5.         Reduction of the width of the Boyce Road connection between the Anzac Parade carriageways;

 

6.         Modification to the traffic signals at Anzac Parade and Boyce Road intersection providing temporary posts, lanterns and detectors;

 

7.         Introduction of one way traffic in the northern section of Walsh Avenue;

 

8.         Modification to the traffic signals at the Maroubra Road / Walsh Avenue intersection providing temporary posts, lanterns and detectors;

 

9.         Relocation of State Transit bus route 316;

 

10.       Closure of the Anzac Parade central island car park during the construction works;

 

11. Reinstatement of all roadways, footways, traffic signs, road marking and traffic signals arrangements.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The principal impacts of the proposed temporary traffic changes will be:

 

1.         The diversion of southbound ‘through’ traffic currently using Bruce Bennetts Place;

 

This volume is negligible in the morning but is some 140 to 150 vph in the afternoon and weekend peak periods.  The major element of this movement is by right-turn from Anzac Parade to Boyce Road.  It is considered that many of these vehicles will continue on to make the right-turn movement into Maroubra Road while others will divert earlier into Snape Street and Gale Road with others continuing on and turning at Wise Street.

 

2.         The diversion of traffic accessing properties in Bruce Bennetts Place, Boyce Road (west) and Piccadilly Place;

 

These movements currently involve right and left turn movements from Anzac Parade to Boyce Road and westbound movement from Boyce Road. These movements will divert through the Anzac Parade / Maroubra Road intersection to access Bruce Bennetts Place from Maroubra Road.

 

3.         An undesirable element of the proposed changes suggested in the submitted proposal will be the closure of the central island car park between the two carriageways of Anzac Parade, between Boyce Road and Green Street.  This area currently provides parking for 37 cars;

 

4.         Another significant outcome of the proposed changes will be the diversion of traffic volumes through the Anzac Parade / Maroubra Road intersection.

 

            However, it is considered that this change to some extent will be offset by the reduced traffic movements as a consequence of the closure of much of the shopping centre and its car park, which previously generated some 330 (PM peak) and 560 (Saturday) vph.

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee considered the proposed temporary traffic arrangements.  The Committee has reported that the proposed traffic arrangements will not result in unsatisfactory traffic operational problems should all temporary measures proposed be implemented to RTA’s standards in terms of signposting and line marking and provided that RTA implements minor changes, as proposed, to existing traffic signals operations.

 

However, the Committee and Council officers are greatly concerned at the potential impact of the loss of the Anzac Parade central island parking area on the adjoining businesses. The Committee and Council officers therefore instructed the developer’s contractors to explore possible measures to minimise this loss of parking.

 

Accordingly, the contractors have considered the alternative options of pipe jacking in an attempt to reduce the impact of car park losses to the public, explored different staging solutions and have submitted the following two construction options for Council’s consideration:

 

Option A -  Pipe jacking and restricting storage areas: 

 

This option would maintain a maximum of 10 car parking spaces. However, Council officers are extremely concerned with this operation from a public safety perspective as the car park access ways will have to be single entry in and out and will have to be shared with construction traffic. (Program: 16 weeks)

 

Option B – Extended hours of work:

 

This option would cause complete closure of the car park area for construction duration of only 7 weeks, and to achieve this the contractors have requested that the approved hours of work be extended from 6.00am to 12.00midnight Monday to Saturday (Current approved hours are: 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am to 5.00pm Saturday).

 

It is proposed to completely exclude any public access to the area during construction to maintain both public and workers safety and to complete the works in the quickest possible time.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed Stormwater and Sewer diversion and amplification works would provide $1.3 million worth of new infrastructure to Council at no cost. This infrastructure will significantly improve the amenity of the surrounding area with regards to flooding and the overall performance of the stormwater and drainage system. The design has been approved by Council as an appropriate system for the area.

 

It is considered that the provision of this system at significant cost to the proposed redevelopment would justify the short-term inconvenience that would be caused, in particular the temporary loss of the Anzac Parade car park, during the duration of construction works.

 

Council’s power to regulate traffic for the purpose of carrying out of roadwork or other work on public roads is conferred by Section 115 of the Roads Act. Section 116 of the Act requires that before granting its consent for such works, Council must cause notice of the proposed works to be published in a local newspaper. The notice must state that any person is entitled to make submission within 28 days of the notice. After considering submissions, Council may grant consent to the application to carry out the works, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, or may refuse the application. It is therefore proposed to undertake such public notification process.

 

Council’ Pricing Policy & Statement of Fees and Charges stipulates charges for WORK ZONES on public streets. These charges are based on the extent of loss of traffic and parking lanes on public roads. For the extent of work proposed to be carried under the subject application, the contractor would be liable to make a payment to Council of a total sum of $39,720 as WORK ZONE fees. This amount includes the imposition of fees for the loss of 37 spaces within the car park area for seven weeks.

 

In addition, it is considered that the applicant should be responsible for all costs associated with the newspaper advertising of the road closures and implementation of Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of RTA and Council’s Traffic Committee to facilitate the proposed works.

 

The following recommendation is therefore submitted for the consideration of Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

A.        The application by the Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited for the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan and carry out the stormwater and sewer mains diversion works associated with the Maroubra Mall redevelopment (Pacific Square Development) Project be approved subject to the following conditions that:

 

1.         The applicant shall cause notice of the details of the proposed road closures and traffic management measures to be implemented during the duration of the works in a local newspaper inviting submissions from interested persons within 28 days of notice. In addition, a letter box drop to all adjoining properties shall be undertaken to advise of the proposed works; Details of the public notice and letter to adjoining properties shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Communications Manager;

 

2.         All submissions received should be carefully considered to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services prior to commencement of work;

 

3.         The construction hours for works in Walsh Avenue, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road shall be limited to during 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am to 5.00pm Saturday with the exception of works at the Anzac Parade car park area which shall be limited to between the hours of 6.00am and 12.00midnight Monday to Saturday; 

 

4.         The applicant shall be responsible to implement and maintain during the period of construction works the Traffic Management measures outlined in this report to the satisfaction of RTA and Randwick Traffic Committee;

 

5.         The applicant shall implement the road closures in accordance with AS1742.3, unless otherwise directed by Police/ authorised Council officers;

 

6.         The applicant shall liaise with the developer of the construction site at 89 – 91 Boyce Road for maintaining uninterrupted building work at that site, and strictly comply with the directions of the Police during the operation of mobile cranes associated with works on that site;

 

7.         At the completion of the works the applicant shall be responsible for the reinstatement of all roadways, footways, landscaped areas, traffic signs, road marking and traffic signals arrangements to the satisfaction of Council and RTA;

 

8.         Full design plans, details and specifications for all works within the road reserves shall be submitted to Director Asset & Infrastructure Services prior to the commencement of works;

 

9.         Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall make a separate application to Council for granting of a Road Opening Permit and strictly comply with the conditions of the Permit;

 

10.       The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of WORK ZONE fees as stipulated under Council’s Schedule of fees and charges, and for the extent and duration of the proposed works, this fee has been calculated at $39,720;

 

11.       The applicant shall indemnify Council against all claims for damage or injury that may result from these activities or occupation of portions of the public ways. Prior to commencement of work, the applicant must provide documentary evidence of public risk insurance cover of at least $20,000,000 indemnifying Council; and

 

B.         That Council impose a penalty of $5000 per week for every week or part thereof exceeding the absolute stipulated seven-week duration of the closure of the Anzac Parade central island car park. The seven-week period shall include all allowances for delay such as inclement weather.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Schematic plans of works.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 15/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE & COUNCIL MEETINGS - SEPTEMBER 2003 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) ACT.

 

 

DATE:

14 July, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4495 xr 98/S/1078 xr 98/S/0331

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill has been finalised after its recent passage through the Legislative Council and it has an impact on Council’s adopted Schedule of Meetings and the scheduled Election date.

 

ISSUES:

 

Lgov has now advised that the election amendments provide that:

 

·          “The ordinary election in a council will be held on the 4th Saturday in March 2004 but the next ordinary election will be held in September, 2008.

·          Mayors and deputy mayors elected by council or by popular vote of electors are to continue to hold office until 27 March 2004, or such further time until they take up duties after the election.

·          Councillors appointed as delegates to county councils will remain in office until 27 March 2004.

·          Any casual vacancies of councillors that occur up to 27 March 2004 need not be filled.  (Otherwise, existing Councillors continue to hold office until 27 March 2004.)

·          Provision for reduction in the number of councillors by a public exhibition process to 31 December 2003 has been deleted, except for Hornsby Shire Council which will be able to exercise this provision.

·          Consequential amendments are made for phasing in of new membership for registration of Local Government parties and lodging of returns disclosing pecuniary interests.”

 

When the Schedule of Committee and Council Meetings for 2003 was adopted by Council late last year, it made provision for the Council Election to be held on 13th September, 2003.  The Schedule now needs to be modified to take into account the legislative amendments and the ability for Council to resume a normal cycle of meetings for the month of September.

 

Accordingly, it is proposed that the following altered schedule of meetings for September, 2003 be applicable:

 

·          28th August – Deadline: Committees 9/9

·          9th September – Committee Meetings

·          18th September – Deadline: Council 23/9

·          23rd September – Council Meeting

 

When the Schedule of Meetings for the year 2004 is being prepared for submission to Council, provision will be made in that document to accommodate the new date for the Council election of 27th March, 2004.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to an amendment to the Local Government Act, which has the effect of rescheduling the date for the Council Election, it is now necessary for Council to alter its Schedule of Committee and Council Meetings for the month of September, 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That Council alter its 2003 Schedule of Meetings and hold Committee Meetings on Tuesday, 9th September and a Council Meeting on Tuesday, 23rd September, 2003; and

 

b)         That membership of Council Committees and Council representation on outside Committees remain unaltered until the new scheduled election date of 27 March, 2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 52/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Randwick Environmental Park Plan of Management

 

 

DATE:

5 July, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4514

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick Environmental Park is located within the Department of Defence land known as the Defence Site Bundock Street, Randwick. The Randwick Environmental Park (the Park) is a new 13.1 hectare park in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the Moverly Green Development and Argyle Street, South Coogee. The land is currently owned by the Department of Defence (the Department) and is part of the 49 hectares which has been identified as surplus to the Department’s requirements.

 

The Randwick Environmental Park was identified in the Master Plan for the site, which was adopted by Council, with variations, on 13 September 2001. The Randwick Environmental Park contains bushland, including vegetation of national conservation significance, an ephemeral wetland and open space areas. The natural significance of the remnant bushland and wetland has lead to the creation of the environmental park.

 

To ensure the long term conservation of this natural heritage, Council prepared  Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Amendment No.23, which was gazetted 9 May 2003. This amending LEP rezoned the REP to Zone No. 7 Environmental Protection - Natural Heritage. A core objective of this zone is to identify, protect, conserve and enhance land of natural heritage value. The LEP amendment also requires that a Plan of Management be prepared for all land Zoned 7 Environmental Protection, to ensure that the natural heritage is sustainably managed over time and that the management practices are consistent with the objectives of Zone No 7.

 

A Plan of Management has now been prepared following an extensive review by a panel of experts and redrafting by Council Officers, which was paid for by the Department. This Plan of Management will ensure the protection, conservation and enhancement of the Park’s natural heritage over time. Accordingly it is a recommendation of this report that Council consider and endorse the Plan of Management for Randwick Environmental Park July 2003 (attachment 1).

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department has, since adoption of the master plan by Council, submitted a number of development applications (DA) for parts of the surplus land, including one for the Randwick Environmental Park, which received a deferred commencement approval from Council on 25 February 2003. This DA provides for the embellishment of the environmental park and includes first year works up to $1 million in value.  Forming part of this approval was the interim endorsement of a draft Plan of Management for the Park prepared by consultants Urban Bushland Management, on behalf of the Department.

 

Subsequently the draft Plan of Management (PoM) for the Randwick Environmental Park has been extensively reviewed and redrafted, upon recept of recommendations from the Review Panel. The Review Panel consisted of representatives from:

·          National Parks and Wildlife Service (Threatened Species Unit)

·          Department of Land and Water Conservation (now Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources)

·          Professor Paul Adam (local resident and wetland expert)

·          Randwick City Council (Bushland Management Unit, Assets and Infrastructure Department and Strategic Planning)

 

In light of comments received by the review panel, the PoM was redrafted by Council, at the Department’s expense, and circulated once more to the review panel and Department of Defence. The Plan of Management has also been developed having regard for submissions from the community consultation for the development application establishing the Randwick Environmental Park. It includes objectives, performance targets and related information regarding actions, costs and timing and identifies the bodies responsible for all actions.

 

It should be noted that this PoM is a land owner’s (Department of Defence) PoM, until such time as the Randwick Environmental Park is dedicated to Council. Dedication to Council is likely to occur in late 2004, after the satisfactory completion of works by the Department. Upon dedication to Council the land will become community land and as such a PoM under the Local Government Act 1993, will be prepared for Council’s consideration and publicly exhibited under the relevant provisions of this Act. Nevertheless to ensure consistency in management this PoM has been prepared following the objectives of the Local Government Act for a PoM, in addition to the requirements of Randwick LEP. This Plan of Management will form the substantive basis for Council’s PoM, but Council’s PoM will have the benefit of further refinement following completion of first year works and community consultation.

 

This PoM identifies three management zone types within Randwick Environmental Park: bushland, wetland and passive recreation. The plan aims to appropriately manage the environmental park for the protection, conservation and enhancement of the bushland and wetland, while providing a range of passive recreational opportunities, which are sympathetic to the bushland and wetland. For example the Park will provide BBQ facilities set in a open passive recreational area and cycle ways traversing through the Park, all positioned away from sensitive bushland, which is also surrounded by appropriate buffer areas to allow for regeneration and expansion of the bushland. The PoM had extensive detail on proposed planting, siting and type of proposed infrastructure.

 

The design and management of Randwick Environmental Park includes consideration of the potential impacts from future land uses identified in the Master Plan and from neighbouring lands. For example the PoM contains management actions for dealing with, weed invasion, stormwater quality, littering and inappropriate access to areas from pedestrians, bicycle and motorised vehicles.

 

Environmental education opportunities, via boardwalks and lookout points with interpretation features and an information shelter will also be offered in the environmental park, to complement the natural heritage and passive recreational elements of the Park.

 

The Department of Defence and Randwick City Council have agreed to transfer the land to Council ownership upon satisfactory completion all works (up to $1 million) identified in the DA establishing the Randwick Environmental Park. Completion of DA work is likely by late 2004. Upon dedication of the Park, the Department is to make payment to Council of $2.5 million to fully fund works and park maintenance for the next 19 years.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Plan of Management for the Randwick Environmental Park has now been prepared as a land owner’s plan of management, following extensive liaison between review panel members, Department of Defence and having regard for submissions arising from the community consultation for the DA establishing the Randwick Environmental Park.

 

The Randwick Environmental Park Plan of Management is now considered to be a comprehensive document that will ensure the protection, conservation and enhancement of natural heritage over time.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council consider and endorse the Randwick Environmental Park Plan of Management July 2003, as the current land owner’s (Department of Defence) plan of management for the park.

2.         That the following be noted. That upon dedication of the Randwick Environmental Park to Council, a Plan of Management for community land under the Local Government Act 1993 will be prepared for Council’s consideration, together with the public exhibition of the plan under the relevant provisions of the Act.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Randwick Environmental Park Plan of Management July 2003 (UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TONY WATSON

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

TEAM LEADER STRATEGIC PLANNING


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 53/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

11 Tower Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

15 July, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0118/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 118/2003 of 11 Tower Street, Coogee for demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new part two, part three storey dwelling house incorporating two swimming pools, a gymnasium and a double garage to the front of the dwelling 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 8 July 2003.

2. A4 reduced plans.  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

8 July, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0118/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

To demolish the existing dwelling house and erect new part two, part three storey house including double garage, children’s play pool, lap pool, storeroom and gymnasium.

PROPERTY:

 11 Tower Street, Coogee.

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Jacki Goodridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors July Greenwood, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey The estimated cost of the development is $1.1 million

 

The main issues of the application are view loss, exceedance of the preferred solutions of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (DCP) for floor space, external wall height and ground floor and front building alignment setbacks. The main concerns raised by objectors relate to bulk and scale, overshadowing of the public domain, setbacks and view loss. Amended plans were lodged to address the majority of concerns raised by objectors and some of the non-compliances with preferred solutions. It is considered that on balance the application as amended resolves many of the original issues of the objector’s and achieves the performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new part two, part three storey dwelling house incorporating two swimming pools, a gymnasium and a double garage to the front of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling has living rooms to the ground floor and a study. On the first floor, bedrooms, a guest room and the gymnasium are proposed. At the third storey a rumpus room is proposed. The total floor area of the dwelling is 289sqm.

 

The dwelling is contemporary in architectural style incorporating extensive wall modulation and a well articulated façade to the street and to the southern elevation, which overlooks Gordon’s Bay.

 

A swimming pool is proposed to be located to the northern boundary and the children’s play room to the south-western corner of the site.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Tower St and on the northern side of Gordon’s Bay. The site has a total area of 495.5sqm. The site is occupied currently by a detached dwelling house of a mock Spanish mission architectural style that was approved in 1974.

 

View of property from corner of Tower St and Cliffbrook Pde. Height poles depicted show originally submitted proposal.

 

 

View from Tower St of No. 11 Tower St including parking structure located on the building alignment for No. 9 Tower St.

 

 

The streetscape of Tower St is varied with examples of older style detached dwellings and semi-detached dwelling houses. Many of these properties have been the subject of alterations and additions. There are a number of examples of parking structures forward of the dominant building line.

 

The subject site is visually prominent being located on the cliff top of the northern side of Gordon’s Bay. The property enjoys extensive views to the south and east over the ocean.

 

The surrounding properties of Gordon’s Bay are larger scaled developments often incorporating several storeys. Whilst many of these sites differ in character and have greater site areas than the subject site they are visually correlated to this site, such that the greater Gordon’s Bay setting also needs to be considered in the urban design assessment.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged with Council on the 21 February 2003. 16 objections and a petition of 75 signatures were received during the notification period. As a result of this level of objection a meeting was held between Council officers and the architect to discuss the issues of concern raised. The applicant agreed to erect height poles to determine the extent of impact from the proposed building envelope and view the impact from primary affected properties.

 

The height poles were erected on the 6th May and in total 8 properties were visited.

 

As a result of the view, the architect prepared amended plans to address the issues of concern including increasing side setbacks, reducing usable floor area, maintaining the footprint of the existing dwelling to the rear to reduce view loss, setback of the partial third storey from the front elevation to reduce view loss for first floor additions to properties on Tower St, and additional privacy treatment from deck areas to reduce amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

These amended plans were renotified to all the originally notified properties.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1       Submissions

 

a.         Objections to original notification

 

17 individual letters of objection and one petition were submitted.

 

Petition of 75 signatures on the grounds that the development is:

 

·          Out of character with the established streetscape, being excessive in height at 3 storeys.

·          Non-compliance with Council’s DCP.

·          Loss of amenity including view loss and misrepresented details of the proposal.

                              

These points will be addressed as part of the summary of objector’s concerns later in this section of the report. In addition to the petition individual submissions were received.

 

Summary of issues raised as part of the original submissions:

 

·          Non-compliance with Council’s preferred solutions.

·          The development is unreasonably bulky out of scale with the surrounding streetscape.

·          Loss of views as a result of the new dwelling house

·          Use of the dwelling for likely business purposes

·            Loss of amenity to neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and increased parking

·            Inaccurate plans

·            Water management concerns

·            No consideration for the sensitivity of the locality

·            Impact to neighbours during construction

 

Many of these points of concern were repeated as part of the submissions on the notification of the amended plans.

 

b.         Objections to amended plans

 

The second notification resulted in 15 individual letter of objection and one petition.

 

Many of the individual points of objection raised as part of the letters of submission are repeated, therefore all the issues will be summarised and addressed on a collective basis. The discussion on the submissions will be on the issues raised on the amended plans dated the 26 May 2003.

 

After the end of the second notification period two more petitions were lodged one of 38 signatures reiterating concerns for the proposed front setback to Tower St, variation to external wall height, public safety from the stairs to the coastal walkway and drainage impacts from the swimming pool.

 

The second petition received outside of the notification period comprised of 285 signatures. This petition was collected from the coastal walkway and accordingly contained a significant number of signatures outside of the immediate locality and outside of Randwick Council area. The covering concerns of the petition related to the variation to height and bulk and safety from the public stairs.

 

The points raised in these petitions are outlined in the discussion below.

 

The names and addresses of each of the objectors who provided individual submissions (from both notification periods) and issues raised are detailed below:

 

LC Hunt

9 Tower St

 

P & L Masterton

28 Battery St

 

P & S Verran

1 Melrose Parade

 

J Young & C Downs

5 Tower St

 

A Smith

7 Tower St (since sold property)

 

D Llewelyn

2 Cliffbrook Parade

 

J Demetrious Consultant

46 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

S & R Stonier

24 Battery St

 

A Melick

28A Battery St

 

B & A Marsh

2/4 Cliffbrook Parade

 

R Levy

3 Tower St

 

W Salmon

11 Mundarrah

 

B Heffernan

2-4 Melrose Parade

 

J Temperley

1/4 Cliffbrook Parade

 

B & A Fitzgerald

3 Melrose Parade

 

P & A Hanlon

23 Battery St

 

F Gonzalez

27 Battery St

 

R Halliday

25 Battery St

 

N Watt

1 Tower St

 

·          Concern for reduced front setback to 3.5m out of character with the dominant pattern of front setbacks and resultant amenity impacts.

 

Comment

 

The preferred solution for front setbacks for dwelling houses is an average of the adjoining dwelling houses or 6m. In this instance there is only one adjoining property, which has a zero setback due to a parking structure located on the street alignment. This variation to the otherwise dominant building alignment of the street needs to be taken into consideration when determining an appropriate front setback for the subject site. The architect has cited the design advantages of providing a ‘bookend’ style development to the end of the street addressing the Bay, whereby varying the preferred front setback and external wall height. It is considered that given the unique site being located on two frontages Gordon’s Bay and Tower St the design argument is considered acceptable provided the performance requirements of the control for setbacks are achieved, this will be discussed in further detail under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          The third floor as it is over the height limit

 

Comment

 

The preferred solution for external wall height is 7m, the proposed external wall height has a maximum measurement of 8.4m. The exceedence with the preferred solution represents a substantial numerical variation that results in excessive scale and additional overshadowing of the adjoining reserve. As such, it is considered that the third storey consisting of the rumpus room should be deleted. This matter is detailed further under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          Overshadowing of the steps to Gordon’s Bay

 

Comment

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application (and amended to show the full extent of the shadows) have been assessed and are discussed in greater detail under Environmental Assessment section of this report. It should be noted that currently the stairs receive a considerable amount of over shadowing on the winter solstice. The deletion of the upper level of the proposed building will result in the building complying with the preferred wall height, thereby minimising the extent of overshadowing.

 

·          View loss as a result of the amendments

 

Comment

 

Height poles were erected to demonstrate the extent of view loss as a result of the new dwelling, based on the extent and quality of view to be lost from adjoining properties amended plans were prepared and submitted varying the footprint of the dwelling house. Several properties to Battery St, Tower St and Melrose Parade raised issue with view loss each of these properties were inspected and the extent of loss and quality of existing view was identified. A detail discussion on the view loss to be anticipated for each of these properties has been provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

Height poles depicting the envelope of the proposed dwelling were erected to demonstrate likely view loss and based on this inspection it is considered that the amended plans provide a reasonable outcome in terms of view retention.

 

·          Sensitivity of Gordon’s Bay not considered

 

Comment

 

The environmental sensitivity of Gordon’s Bay was considered as part of the referral to Council’s Bushland Officers, these comments are provided under Technical comments section of this report. In terms of urban design and built form the sensitivity or quality of the environment was considered in the site analysis submitted to Council from which the design was prepared. The site falls under Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of RLEP 1998, which requires Council to consider the aesthetic appearance of the proposed building and for a development not to adversely affect the amenity and character of the locality. A discussion on Clause 29 is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          Concern for water management

 

Comment

 

Council’s Drainage Engineer has assessed the application in terms of stormwater management and has provided relevant conditions of consent. The comments are provided under the “Technical Comment” section of this report.

 

·          Variation to Council’s controls specifically floor space ratio and incorrect calculations

 

Comment

 

Whilst the preferred solution for floor space is varied by this proposal, it is considered that the performance requirements have been achieved for floor area as detailed further under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

The FSR of the proposal has been calculated as part of the assessment of this report and is further discussed under the relevant section.

 

·          Shadow diagrams are not accurate

 

Comment

 

The submitted shadow diagrams were accurate from a spot check carried out as part of the assessment however the detail of the diagrams was not considered sufficient in that the extent of the shadow onto Council’s reserve was not detailed. Amended shadow diagrams were submitted to Council and the final assessment for overshadowing impacts was based on these diagrams.

 

·          Design of the dwelling is not sympathetic to the streetscape or locality

 

Comment

 

The locality has a mix of architectural styles and building bulk and scale such that there is not a dominant style or character which would could be integrated into the design of this dwelling house. This dwelling addresses Tower Street and is also part of the highly visible foreshore of Gordon’s Bay. These streetscapes are each different with varying architectural styles, bulk and scale such that the dwelling had to integrate with each of these streetscapes.  The appropriateness of the built form of the dwelling is further discussed under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          Dwelling is too bulky and out of scale with surrounding development

 

Comment

 

Bulk and scale of the development have been addressed under Environmental Assessment section of this report. The predominant building scale of Tower St is less than that of the proposed dwelling however the dwelling is also part of the locality of Gordon’s Bay where dwellings are of a greater scale. The contrast of these two “streetscape” needs to be considered in the assessment of the application. The impact of the apparent bulk of the dwelling is addressed under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          The application does not comply with Council’s development standards contained within the DCP

 

Comment

 

Compliance with Council’s development controls is addressed under Policy Controls section of this report.

 

·          The development is not consistent with Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of RLEP 1998

 

Comment

 

Clause 29 of RLEP 1998 is addressed under Randwick Local Environmental Plan section of this report.

 

·          The dwelling will result in loss of privacy

 

Comment

 

Privacy was an issue addressed as part of the amended plans. Overlooking will be addressed under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·         Noise impacts and aural loss of privacy from the swimming pools

 

Comment

 

Aural privacy is addressed under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          Concern for structural destabilisation to neighbouring properties as a result of the level of excavation

 

Comment

 

A condition of consent will be imposed requiring a dilapidation report to be submitted for adjoining properties due to the extent of excavation proposed as part of this application.

 

·          Errors in the plans

 

Comment

 

The plans submitted have been assessed in relation to the survey and on site inspection, there are no significant variations or errors identified, minor notation errors in relation to the existing building are not considered to have an impact on the accuracy of the plans.

 

1.         Support

 

S & M Patterson

7 Tower St

 

·          The proposal is of a good quality and will improve the streetscape

 

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       Assets and Infrastructure

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are several trees that will be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

1.         Two (2) Pheonix canariensis (Canary Island Palm) located towards the front of the site. These trees are in the order of 5-6 metres in height appear to be in average condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. These trees are likely to cause structural damage to the existing and proposed structures. As such, permission is granted for the removal of these trees subject to two replacements (not palms) located within the site. 

 

2.         One (1) Ficus elastica (Rubber Tree) located towards the northern boundary of the site. This tree is in the order of 6 metres in height appear to be in average condition poor form and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation order. Permission is granted for the removal of this tree.

 

3.         One (1) Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia) located towards the northern boundary of the site. This tree is in the order of 6-8 metres in height appears to be in average condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement (not palm) located within the site.

 

4.         Two (2) Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located towards the rear of the site. These trees are in the order of 5-6 metres in height appear to be in average condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for the removal of these trees.

 

Background

 

Bushland is present in the adjacent Gordons Bay Reserve to the south. The Reserve is zoned 6A Open Space and, hence, the bushland is protected by SEPP 19. Council has undertaken many years of bush regeneration work in Gordons Bay Reserve below 11 Tower St.

 

No items of national environmental significance (pursuant to the EPBC Act [Clth]) or nationally rare (ROTAP) species or state listed threatened species, populations, or ecological communities (pursuant to TSC Act [NSW]) have been recorded in Gordons Bay Reserve. No known locally rare species, which are present in Gordons Bay Reserve, would be affected by the proposed development.

 

Issues

 

Gordons Bay Reserve, including the bushland and naturally regenerating areas, is sensitive to disturbances from further uphill. The proposed development poses a number of potential threats to Gordons Bay Reserve, including bushland, due to:

·          Demolition works;

·          construction works;

·          earthworks;

·          access during and after development;

·          placement, storage and disposal of items and substances during development;

·          run-off during and after development (see following);

·          invasion by species proposed in landscaping;

·          deleterious genetic effects on populations of indigenous species by planting non-local provenance plant stock.

 

The effects may be significant and permanent and may be caused unintentionally. The degree to which most of these potential threats may impact the Reserve is significantly increased due to the position of the proposed development at the top of a steep slope above the bushland.

 

Water currently enters, or may enter, Gordon’s Bay Reserve due to:

·          at least one existing outlet pipe, possibly carrying stormwater or from the existing in-ground pool; emptying of the existing in-ground pool, which is currently near to full;

·          run-off due to proposed levels within 11 Tower St being higher (over a metre in places) than the adjacent Reserve (see Site and Roof Drainage Plan, January 2003).

·          Water entering bushland often leads to increased weed growth to the extent that these out-compete native species and/or significantly increase the cost of weed control. Pool chemicals, such as chlorine, may further greatly increase any negative impact on the environment.

 

The “Landscape Concept” diagram (February 2003) states, “It is recommended that a two metre strip beyond the site boundary to the south is weeded, replanted and mulched in accordance with Council’s bush regeneration requirements for foreshore zones.” Due to the presence nearby of fast-growing, persistent weeds, planting is considered undesirable in the two metre wide strip for at least several years, until these weeds are controlled by Council’s bush regeneration works currently progressing uphill within the Reserve. Any plantings are likely to become infested with weeds if not regularly maintained.

 

Given adequate mitigation measures, including those identified in the conditions below, there is unlikely to be significant disturbance to, or degradation of, Gordon’s Bay Reserve or the bushland present. Without such measures, the proposed development is likely to significantly disturb and degrade the Reserve, including bushland.

 

Council’s engineers have reviewed the stormwater plans and consider that the stormwater from the dwelling could be adequately managed by discharging to the street. This can be achieved through standard conditions of consent

 

SEPP 19 and its applicability will be discussed in further detail later in this report.

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Yes- minimal amenity impact and sympathetic to the aesthetic appearance of the locality.

 

7.1       Policy Controls

 

a.         Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Yes 3.5 stars achieved.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes all adjoining properties are to the north of the subject site.

 

 

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      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.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes- as conditioned.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes- as conditioned

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

Yes 44% of the site landscaped area

 

Yes greater than 61sqm provided.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes 23% provided as soft landscaped area

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR-0.57:1

 

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                                1500

 

No, but achieves the performance requirements of the control.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No 8 &.6. However, performance requirements satisfied by deletion of the rumpus room.

 

Yes- on balance when considering all streetscapes.

 

No- However performance requirements achieved. Minimal impact as a result of the cut.

 

 

 

No- Exceeds 12m however performance requirements achieved with no adjoining properties affected.

 

Yes, on balance as discussed under Environmental Assessment Section of this report

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

 

Front Setback

 

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

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Yes – See Section 8.4

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes to the north  with 900mm to ground, and 1500mm to the first floor. No to the south with 700-900mm setback for both storeys however performance requirements satisfied.

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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

Yes no direct overlooking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes- height to be reduced to comply through condition.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·              enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·              safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, however performance requirements satisfied where landscaping will soften the driveway structure.

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

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

Yes through conditions of consent.

 

8.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies regulates all dwelling house and attached dual occupancy development in the Randwick City area. The DCP contains performance requirements, which are an extension and interpretation of the objectives of the DCP and preferred solutions which are more precise statements of outcome and are generally numerical based. Preferred solutions are not “compulsory standards”, but illustrate how performance requirements may be achieved in the design of development. As numerical standards are often a crude reflection of intent, the DCP adopts a performance approach to design guidance which allows greater flexibility and scope for innovation.

 

8.1       Solar access

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the shadow cast at the winter solstice will fall away from neighbouring residential properties. The shadows will fall on to Council’s nature reserve and onto the walkway of the coastal walk around the circumference of Gordon’s Bay. At 9am the shadow is comparative to the shadow cast by the existing dwelling house falling on the reserve, walkway and second half of the steps to Gordon’s Bay. At 12noon the shadow cast will again fall on the reserve and on the steps which is consistent with the existing shadow, the additional shadow cast at this point is minimal and not likely to have an adverse impact. At 3pm the shadow falls onto Tower St, the reserve and steps. This is also an increase from the existing shadow cast.

 

It is recognised that the shading is not going to affect neighbouring residential properties and the increase in shade to the reserve is minimal, Council’s Bushland Officer has advised that the extent of overshadowing would not adversely affect vegetation in the reserve. Additional shading to the stairs resulting in slippery steps, a concern raised by the objectors, is not considered to be a significant issue as the increase in shading is minimal and not reasonable grounds for refusal or significant modification to the proposal. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department have reviewed the plans and do not raise issue with the additional shading of the steps. Notwithstanding, the proposed deletion of the rumpus room will improve solar access into the reserve and reduces the scale of the building lessening its prominence in a sensitive coastal location.

 

8.2       Floor Area

 

The preferred solution for FSR for the site is 0.57:1. The proposed FSR is 0.65:1, which exceeds the preferred solution, however Council is able to vary the controls if it is satisfied that the performance requirements of the control are satisfied. The performance requirements for floor area are 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 dwelling is consistent with the context of the surrounding built form of Gordon’s Bay where there is an established pattern of larger dwellings fronting the Bay. The scale of the dwellings to Tower Street is reduced from that of the rest of Gordon’s Bay primarily as these properties are set further back from the Bay and have not maximised their development potential.

 

The dwelling being located on the corner of Cliffbrook Parade and Tower St acts as a development bookend to those two frontages whereby a larger dwelling acts as a defining element as it frames the streetscape. The property is located to the south of adjoining properties therefore the variation to the bulk of the structure from the DCP ‘s preferred solution will not have an adverse impact in terms of overshadowing. Whilst view loss has been identified as an issue with this application the erection of any new dwelling to this site would impact on views currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties based on the location of the site being forward of all other properties and dominating the primary frontage. All efforts to site the dwelling to minimise view loss has been made by the applicant whereby it would be difficult to refuse the application on the grounds of impact to neighbouring dwellings as some degree of view loss is unavoidable with the position of this property in relation to the adjoining properties.

 

Consideration has been given to the impact of the additional bulk of the dwelling to public open space, specifically to the section of coastal walkway to Cliffbrook Parade. There is an identified increase in overshadowing as a result of this variation to bulk however the increase is only minimal from what is currently experienced and unlikely to affect or diminish the quality and resultant enjoyment of this space.

 

However, when considering the variation to the preferred solution for floor area the cumulative impact of the other variations to the controls should be considered. The added impact of the variation to third floor setbacks and external wall height would result in a development that unreasonably exceeds the development controls. Deletion of the third storey rumpus room would reduce these non-compliances to an acceptable level. This deletion would not affect the design or internal amenity of the proposed dwelling and would reduce the floor space ratio down to 0.59:1, which is closer to the preferred solution. This deletion will be recommended as a condition of consent.

 

8.3       Height, Form and Materials

 

The proposed external wall height is a maximum of 8.6m, which exceeds the preferred solution of 7m. As with floor area, the impact of the variation to the height control could be justified as having minimal or not unreasonable impact however as deletion of the rumpus room would resolve the majority of the impacts and would not have a significant impact on the design of the dwelling deletion is considered an acceptable design solution. The external wall height would then be reduced to 6.6m, which achieves the preferred solution. This reduction will also improve visual bulk, simplify the built form and reduce overshadowing to the public domain.

 

8.4       Building Setbacks

 

Side setbacks are varied for the proposed dwelling where articulation has been incorporated into the design. To the northern boundary the side setback for the ground floor is 900mm, which achieves the preferred solution. For the first floor the northern setback is 1500mm for the gym section of this floor. The remainder of this floor is setback 4.3m to 4.9m, which exceeds the preferred solution.

 

To the southern boundary the ground floor setback is 600mm to 900mm, which partially varies the preferred solution of 900mm. This reduced setback is however considered to satisfy the performance requirements of the control where there is no streetscape or neighbouring properties affected by the variation with no amenity impacts. As has been previously discussed the impact to public domain is minimal and not unreasonable subject to the deletion of the third storey of the proposed building. To the first floor the southern setback is 900mm with the variation being for blade walls which are incremental to the design of the dwelling, this variation from the preferred setback of 1500mm is also considered to satisfy the performance requirements as outlined above. As there is no established pattern of side setbacks to Cliffbrook Parade and where there are a number of reduced front setbacks for adjoining properties the variation is considered consistent with the streetscape. With the recommended deletion of the second floor rumpus room the variation to the third floor 3m side setback is avoided.

 

The front setback of existing dwelling at 11 Tower Street varies from the proposed setback is 3500mm from the study and guest rooms and 5520mm to the garage and gym. This provides for articulated and modulated front elevation. The setback to No. 9 Tower St the adjoining property is 0m (varied by a carport structure), which reads as a bulky garage from the streetscape. There are other examples of parking structures varying the dominant front setback, the 6m setback.  Whilst the proposal does not comply with the dominant would then require a front setback of the properties in Tower Street, given the location of this property on the corner of Cliffbrook Parade and Tower Street with the principal orientation to Gordon’s Bay the setbacks and built form of the properties to the Bay and Cliffbrook Parade need to also be considered in the merit assessment of the appropriate location of the dwelling. Having regard to these other frontages the placement of the dwelling forward of the other properties in Tower Street provides a visual transition between all frontages that this corner site addresses. It is therefore considered that with the staggered frontage the new dwelling does not detract from the quality of the streetscape of Tower Street and provides a good built form consistent with other properties in the locality which this dwelling is read as being part of the wider and does not adversely impact on vies this visual catchment. The front setback satisfies the performance requirements of the control on merit the variation is supported.

 

The rear setback of the proposed dwelling matches the existing dwelling’s footprint and achieves the preferred solution of 4.5m.

 

8.5       Visual and acoustic privacy

 

Council officers raised privacy concerns with the applicant and requested some form of privacy treatment in relation to the first floor side deck off the gymnasium to the property of No. 9 Tower Street. The amended plans provided an 1800mm privacy wall and planter boxes to restrict overlooking to the north and to the west. It is considered that this measure satisfactorily addresses this issue.

 

To the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling house there are no windows to habitable rooms that do not have some form of privacy treatment either frosted glass or raised sill height. There are no neighbours to the southern boundary to result in overlooking. To the western elevation a deck is proposed off a bedroom however overlooking is not considered to be an issue as the distance to the adjoining property to the rear is some 13m, and is considered sufficient distance to reduce direct sightlines.

 

Aural privacy was a concern raised by objectors in relation to the lap pool, it is considered that a lap pool is for exercise purposes only and not of sufficient size to allow for recreation uses which would be considered to be of greater impact than exercise usage. Aural privacy from the children’s pool is also considered to not impact neighbouring property owners as it is located to the south western boundary where a dividing wall and planter box will provide an aural barrier from the neighbouring property. A swimming pool is similarly located to the adjoining property such that a similar impact in terms of noise associated with the use will be shared between the properties.

 

8.6       Fences

 

The front fence is proposed to have a height of 1800mm and be of rendered masonry construction. It is considered that the streetscape does not itself to high fences and as such the maximum height of the wall shall be reduced to 1200mm to comply with the DCP and to reduce the impact to the streetscape of a fortress style frontage.

 

8.7       Foreshore Development

 

The site is not identified within the draft coastal maps associated with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 as being a sensitive site.

 

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area accordingly Clause 29 of the LEP 1998 needs to be considered. The section of Foreshore development contained within the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies needs to also be considered. Council is required to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of a new building in relation to the foreshore. It is this consideration that has prompted the merit assessment of the application in terms of definition of applicable streetscape. The dwelling cannot be viewed as being only part of the Tower Street streetscape, the Gordon’s Bay and Cliffbrook Parade locality must also be considered. The bulk, scale and design of the dwelling is in appropriate when viewed in the context of the greater locality as properties to Gordon’s Bay tend to be larger scale, of a contemporary design and provide dominant built forms in relation to the foreshore. More recently designed and constructed new dwelling houses and alterations and additions to existing dwelling houses can be considered to contribute positively to the scenic quality of this foreshore. This proposed dwelling is of a similar design being read as an extensive dwelling of over two stories and being of a visually compatible bulk and scale and one, which will be complimentary to the scenic quality. The design is well modulated and in proportion to the other properties, the natural environment and the adjoining public domain of the foreshore. The visual quality of Gordon’s Bay will not be adversely affected by the erection of this new dwelling. A condition of consent will be imposed requiring the finishes and materials of the new dwelling house to by sympathetic and in keeping with the character of the foreshore area.

 

8.8       View loss

 

View loss was a primary concern raised by adjoining property owners in relation to the amended plans. The primarily affected properties were visited as part of the erection of height poles marking the envelope of the proposed dwelling. An appreciation of the proposals’ impact was determined at this time.

 

The crucial loss of quality view was from 28 Battery Street where the most significant redesign to preserve this view was required. The amendments to the design were principally to restore their view to the same level of that currently enjoyed with a similar rear alignment to that of the existing dwelling. After re-notification there was still a concern raised specifically in reference to the landscaping along the northern boundary and the location of the southern wall closer to the boundary as these would further affect view loss. The landscaping shall be conditioned to have a maximum height of 1m, as discussed in a meeting with the applicant and owner for the subject site, to ensure there is no further loss of views. The corridor view through the southern setback as outlined by the objector’s consultant is not considered to be crucial view, the view of the headland of the southern end of Gordon’s Bay and the breaking water at this point is preserved. Distant views of blue will also be retained by the deletion of the rumpus room. Adequate efforts to retain views have been made for No. 28 Battery Street.

 

No. 28a Battery Street was also visited however it is considered that views to the east are not of the same quality as the view currently enjoyed to the south which will not be affected.

 

No. 24 Battery Street was visited in terms of view loss, as the rear boundary is to be setback in line with the existing dwelling house view loss is not considered to be significant for this property.

 

3 Melrose Parade raised issue with view loss in terms of loss of a view from a proposed attic window. As the attic is currently not constructed or even has approval, Council is unable to consider such view loss as part of this application. Currently there is no view enjoyed from this property that will be unreasonably diminished by the proposed dwelling.

 

View loss was raised by the adjoining property No. 9 Tower Street as an issue of concern. Photographs and an inspection of the property indicated that the view currently enjoyed was from a carport and a front bedroom which views Gordon’s Bay through the side of the carport. When considering view loss Council must consider the quality of the view and the rooms from which it is enjoyed, a carport and a bedroom viewing through the carport are not considered primary views or intrinsic to the enjoyment of the property. Loss of views to No. 9 Tower Street would not be sufficient grounds to refuse the application and it would be difficult to redesign the dwelling to retain the views and still provide an appropriate built form.

 

Concern was raised by the owners of No. 5 Tower Street in relation to view loss. The primary concern was for loss of view from the front of a recently approved and yet to be constructed first floor addition. Council visited the site and took photos from the approximate location of the first floor to assess the extent of view loss. Photomontages were also submitted by the owners of the property to further detail the loss of views. These photos and inspection clearly indicate that the quality part of the view the breaking water, the Bay meeting the headland and the opening to the Bay and beyond will be preserved. Whilst there would be some loss of views the primary aspect as described above would be retained.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal has been designed to minimise view loss and is consistent with the principle of view sharing.

 

 

View of proposal from 9 Tower Street                                  View retained from proposed first floor 5 Tower.

 


 

View being retained by amended rear setback for properties to Battery Street.

 

8.9       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19- Bushland in Urban Areas (SEPP 19)

 

SEPP 19 relates to all bushland zoned under a Local Environmental Plan as reserved for open space purposes (excluding private recreation). The reserve adjacent to 11 Tower Street is zoned 6A open space accordingly SEPP 19 relates to that site. The SEPP specifies that a consent authority cannot grant approval to works on land adjacent to reserved public open space until the following points have been taken into account:

 

·          The need to retain bushland on the land

·          The effect of the proposal on bushland and in particular on the erosion of soils, siltation of streams and waterways and the spread of weeds and exotic plants within the bushland.

·          Any other matters are relevant to the protection and preservation of bushland

 

Consideration has been given to these above points as part of the referral to Council’s Bushland Officers. The impact of the development was detailed under Technical Officer’s comments. The recommended conditions of consent are considered to adequately mitigate the likely impact of the development on the bushland. The proposed new dwelling house will not have an adverse impact on the quality of this reserve subject to compliance with the conditions of consent included in the recommendation of this report. The aims and objectives of SEPP 19 have been satisfied as part of the assessment of this application.

 

9.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed dwelling seeks to vary some of the preferred solutions outlined in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies however when the site is viewed in the greater context of the streetscape including Gordon’s Bay and Cliffbrook Parade the design can be seen to satisfy the performance requirements of the controls of floor area and setbacks. The amended plans have addressed the issues raised by the objector’s as part of the original notification period however it is considered that in deleting the top rumpus room additional concerns could be satisfied and greater compliance with the development controls could be achieved in terms of setbacks, height and floor area without compromising the design of the dwelling or the amenity of the proposed dwelling house. The proposed deletion and imposition of additional conditions of consent are considered to improve the impact of the dwelling without interfering with the design and function of the dwelling. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 118/03 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection new part two part three storey dwelling house including double garage, children’s play pool, lap pool, storeroom and gymnasium at 11 Tower Street Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 02120 DA00b,01c, 02b, 03c, 04b, 05B, 06b, 07b & DAL/01a dated May 2003 and received by Council on 26 May 2003 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The proposed front fence shall have a maximum height of 1200mm to reduce the impact of the tall structure on the streetscape. Amended fence details shall be submitted as part of the application for construction certificate.

 

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

 

a) all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

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

 

5.         The landscaping along the rear of the site towards the south-eastern corner shall have a maximum height of 1m to ensure views for neighbouring properties are not impacted upon. Details of the plantings to be provided shall be submitted as part of the application for a construction certificate.

 

6.         The proposed upper level rumpus room shall be deleted from the plans thereby lowering the overall height of the building to RL35.15. Details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application. Necessary internal arrangement to  delete the access stairs shall also be required.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12.       Each dwelling must have a waste storage cupboard in the kitchen sufficient to allow separation of garbage, recyclable and compostable materials

 

13.       Hot water pipes must be insulated in order to minimise heat loss.

 

14.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

15.       Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

16.       Landscaped areas must include an area dedicated to on - site composting.

 

17.       Porous paving shall be used in all pathways. Details are to provided with the construction certificate application

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

20.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The following 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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·          Sediment control measures.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

36.       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”.

 

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

 

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

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          Construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

39.       Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any drainage line, natural watercourse, footpath, roadway or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

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

 

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

 

42.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

·          Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

51.       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).

 

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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SECURITY DEPOSIT CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS/CIVIL WORKS CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

a)         Reconstruct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb to suit the new vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b)         Remove any redundant portion of the existing concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

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

 

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

 

ALIGNMENT LEVEL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

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

 

61.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $215.00 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

62.       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.

 

63.       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.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

66.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 3 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)         Two (2) Pheonix canariensis (Canary Island Palm) located towards the front of the site.  

 

b)         One (1) Ficus elastica (Rubber Tree) located towards the northern boundary of the site.

 

c)         One (1) Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia) located towards the northern boundary of the site.

 

d)         Two (2) Arecastrum romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located towards the rear of the site.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bushland Conditions

 

69.       The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for the protection of Gordons Bay Reserve and bushland:

 

70.       The Applicant shall provide a written report of any breaches of the Bushland Conditions to Council’s Bushland Management Technician by the next business day after any breach has occurred. The report shall be signed and dated and information in the report shall include, but not necessarily limited to:

·          The date of the breach;

·          The nature, extent and degree of the breach;

·          The cause of the breach;

·          All persons involved in the breach, including: full first and last names; contact number/s; organisation/s and reason/s for being present;

·          All witnesses to the breach, including: full first and last names; contact number/s and organisation/s; and

·          All plant, equipment, machinery, vehicles, substances, etc. involved in the breach.

·          If Council becomes aware of a breach of the Bushland Conditions for which such a report has not been provided to Council, then Council may request such a report, which shall then be provided to Council within 24 hours.

 

71.       All personnel employed in relation to the development shall receive a site induction prior to their commencement of work, which shall include:

·          that no disturbance to, or removal of, vegetation or soils shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve, except in accordance with these conditions;

·          that no temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve;

·          that access to Gordons Bay Reserve shall be restricted to pedestrian traffic only and, in any case, shall be minimised;

·          that no foreign matter, including, but not limited to: water, cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint, etc., shall be disposed of in, or placed in, or where they may enter, Gordons Bay Reserve;

·          that contravention of any of the above shall be reported immediately to the Applicant’s Project Manager by all persons involved in and witnessing such a contravention.

 

72.       All personnel who have completed this induction shall sign an Induction Register stating that they have completed the induction and that this included all the above information. The Induction Register shall be available for inspection and reproduction at all times by Council.

 

73.       No disturbance to, or removal of, any vegetation or soils shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve as a result of the proposed development. The only exceptions to this shall be:

·          installation of protection fencing, as identified elsewhere in these conditions;

·          landscaping a two metre wide strip within Gordons Bay Reserve, along the southern side of the proposed development, as identified elsewhere in these conditions.

 

In all instances where disturbance to, or removal of, vegetation or soils has occurred within Gordons Bay Reserve, all affected areas shall be immediately repaired to their state prior to commencement of development, as far as possible.

 

74.       Pedestrian traffic to Gordons Bay Reserve relating to the proposed development shall be minimised.

 

75.       No foreign matter, including, but not limited to: cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint, etc., shall be disposed of in, or placed in, or where they may enter, Gordons Bay Reserve. In all instances where such substances have been disposed of in, have been placed in, or have entered, Gordons Bay Reserve, all affected areas shall be immediately repaired to their state prior to commencement of development, as far as possible.

 

76.       No temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve in relation to the proposed development. The only exceptions to this shall be in relation to:

·          installation of protection fencing, as identified elsewhere in these conditions;

·          landscaping a two metre wide strip within Gordons Bay Reserve, along the southern side of the proposed development, as identified elsewhere in these conditions.

 

77.       In all instances where items have been placed or stored within Gordons Bay Reserve, all affected areas shall be immediately repaired to their state prior to commencement of development, as far as possible.

 

78.       A continuous, temporary 1800mm high cyclone wire protection fence shall be installed within Gordons Bay Reserve, within two metres of the entire southern boundary 11 Tower St. The eastern end of this fence shall extend to within one metre from the public footpath on the western side of Tower St. The western end of this fence shall turn to join the boundary of 11 Tower St and 28A Battery St.

 

79.       Silt fencing shall be attached along the full length of the protection  fencing and shall be maintained so as to ensure that no foreign matter, including: sediment, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, etc. passes the protection fence at any time. Silt fencing shall be attached within 24 hours of any given section of the protection fence being installed.

 

80.       Council approved warning signs shall be permanently attached (and immediately repaired and replaced as necessary) to the protection fence at a maximum of 20 metre intervals. A final prototype of the warning sign to be used shall be provided to Council’s Bushland Management Technician for approval and shall be altered as required by the Bushland Management Technician. Warning signs shall be attached within 24 hours of any given section of the protection fence being installed. Warning signs shall include at least all the following information:

·          the presence of bushland in the Reserve;

·          that no disturbance to, or removal of, vegetation or soils shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve;

·          that no temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within Gordons Bay Reserve;

·          that no foreign matter, including water, cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint, etc., shall be disposed of or placed in or where they may enter Gordons Bay Reserve;

·          relevant contact numbers, including the Applicant’s Project Manager and Council’s Bushland Management Technician (Tel:9399-0683);

·          that contravention of any of the above shall be reported immediately to the Applicant’s Project Manager or Council’s Bushland Management Technician.

 

81.       Council’s Bushland Management Technician shall inspect and, when satisfied, provide written confirmation that the protection fencing, silt fencing and warning signs have been appropriately installed, prior to commencement of any demolition, construction or earthworks.

 

82.       No water, including, but not limited to: run-off, stormwater, pool water, sprinklers, etc., shall be piped into, directed into, or otherwise allowed to enter Gordons Bay Reserve via the southern boundary of 11 Tower St, as may occur due to the proposed development. All hard surfaces adjacent to Gordons Bay Reserve shall be designed to fall away from the Reserve, i.e. back into 11 Tower St.

 

83.       Water in the existing in-ground pool shall not be disposed of into, or allowed to enter, Gordons Bay Reserve.

 

84.       Measures shall be undertaken to ensure that no stormwater or pool water is capable of entering Gordons Bay Reserve from 11 Tower St, via existing pipes at any time in the future. The Applicant shall submit to Council details of any methods to be employed to undertake such measures, which are to be acceptable to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued for this application.

 

85.       No gates or other access points shall be incorporated into the southern boundary protection fence or permanent fence/balustrade of 11 Tower St.

 

86.       No weed control, planting or mulching shall occur in Gordons Bay Reserve in relation to the proposed development. The only exception to this shall be that, on completion of all construction works, the area from the protection fence to the southern boundary of 11 Tower St shall be made good and Stenotaphrum sp. (Buffalo Grass) turf shall be installed, where required, in order to re-instate a complete cover of such turf within this area.

 

87.       No species, which may spread from where they are planted into the local environment at any time in the future, shall be used in landscaping. This includes: Cupaniopsis anacardioides and Japanese Maple, as is proposed in the development application. Turf species shall be restricted to Stenotaphrum spp. (Buffalo Grass).

 

88.       No species, which have been recorded as naturally occurring at Gordons Bay Reserve, shall be used in landscape planting. This includes: Viola hederacea, Westringia sp., Lomandra longifolia, Hibbertia scandens and Banksia integrifolia, as is proposed in the development application.

 

89.       A refundable deposit, in the form of cash or cheque, for the amount of $7,000.00, shall be lodged with Council prior to issuing of a construction certificate for this application. The refundable deposit is placed as security to ensure that, subject to the works required and/or authorised by this development consent, no detrimental environmental effect occurs within Gordons Bay Reserve. The refundable deposit will be released at the time of completion of all works, providing that no detrimental environmental effect has occurred within Gordon’s Bay Reserve throughout the construction works. Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to bushland and/or Gordon’s Bay Reserve at any time during the development may result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security to the extent necessary to enable Council to carry out necessary repair or ameliorative works within Gordon’s Bay Reserve.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 54/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Section 94 Contributions Plan- Exhibition and reporting on the Draft Amendment applying to Kensington town centre

 

 

DATE:

9 June, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2665

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Council, at its meeting of 29 April 2003, resolved to endorse the public exhibition of a draft amendment to the current Randwick City Council Section 94 Contributions Plan (1999), in order to include townscape improvement and car parking contributions for the Kensington town centre.

 

The draft amendment to Council’s S94 Contributions Plan (the ‘draft Plan’) has been prepared as part of an overall urban renewal project for the Kensington town centre, under the State Government’s Urban Improvement Program (UIP). With the recent commencement of a new planning framework for the town centre and adoption by Council of a public domain improvement strategy, Council now anticipates redevelopment of the town centre for residential and commercial purposes, generating demand for new and improved public facilities within and interacting with the town centre.

 

The draft Plan was exhibited, as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation (2000) (the Regulation). A total of 3 submissions were received. These are assessed in this report and appropriate changes made to the draft Plan. This report recommends that Council approve the draft Plan attached to this report to be finalised.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The draft Plan proposes to include new contributions applying to the Kensington Town Centre only, in relation to townscape improvement works and on-street car parking provision. This amendment arises from the gazettal of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Amendment No 27, introducing new planning controls which permit a wider range of land uses and greater development potential, and a public domain strategy to address a new vision for urban renewal of this town centre. Under previous planning controls for the town centre, little development and change in the town centre was envisaged, development was stagnant and the town centre in decline.

 

With the commencement of the LEP Amendment No 27 and Development Control Plan (DCP) 2002, in conjunction with the preparation of a public domain strategy, the approval of additional S94 contributions for the Kensington town centre is now timely to ensure the orderly provision of facilities and services for future residents and occupants of the town centre. The new planning framework provides for an increased town centre residential population, significantly enhanced commercial/retail activities within the centre and a more attractive and functional town centre for existing and new residents in the town centre and in the locality, and for people visiting the centre for shopping and leisure purposes.

 

As part of the early UIP investigations, Council, at its meeting of 26 February 2002, resolved to prepare an amendment to the current S94 Contributions Plan to address the likely increase in demand for public facilities arising from a new set of planning controls.

 

The draft LEP, DCP and public domain strategy were progressed over 2002 and finalised in early 2003. A draft amendment to the S94 Contributions Plan was then prepared and reported back to Council on 29 April 2003, and Council endorsed the draft Plan for public exhibition.

 

As part of the UIP, Council has already undertaken a first stage of the townscape improvement works within the town centre, with Council and Planning NSW funding. This involved all works associated with the blocks between Ascot and Bowral streets on the eastern side of Anzac parade and between Peter’s of Kensington and Duke Street on the western side of Anzac Parade. These block improvements provide the blueprint for the works to be undertaken in the remainder of the town centre. The capital works also involved replacing all existing street furniture and introducing planter boxes throughout the centre. This work has now been largely completed.

 

Draft Amendment to S94 Contributions Plan

The draft Plan has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Regulation. As detailed in the 29 April 2003 report to Council, the draft Plan provides for reasonable contributions and establishes a clear nexus, as required, for the proposed levies.

 

The draft Plan sets out the requirements for contributions for townscape improvement works for Kensington town centre, with an overall estimated cost of  $7,336,310. The previous report to Council detailed the work that this will involve. In summary, this work comprises survey, design, site investigations, pre-construction investigations, footpath reconstruction, new kerb and gutters, trenches for utility services, landscaping, furniture provision and median island improvements for Anzac Parade. The median island improvements relate to the existing medians along Anzac Parade and will involve landscaping and the placement of banner poles. It does not involve changing the width or area of the median.

 

The proposed S94 contributions will be levied over both the commercial/retail and residential components of each development, in recognition that these land uses will place demands on and benefit from the improved public domain.

 

The draft Plan also identifies contributions for on-street car parking spaces. This enables a development to meet a minor proportion of its commercial parking requirements on-street, but only where on-site parking cannot be provided.  The draft Plan identified 235 additional spaces, in total, at a cost of $11,759.35 per space. These are proposed along 7 streets, being Ascot, Boronia (part only), Bowral, Carlton, Darling, Duke and Goodwood Streets. The proposed works were detailed in the previous report to Council. In summary, this work comprises survey, design, site investigations, footpath reconstruction, removal and replacement/improvement of verges/landscaping, reconstruction of the road, kerb and gutters, line marking and signage. The intention is that the works will enhance the streetscape of these streets, with good design of the parking areas, interspersed with landscaping areas and trees, and upgraded footpaths.

 

The draft Plan also introduces a CPI adjustment for Kensington town centre for these costs, which will ensure that the contributions will be adjusted for inflation over time and the current cost estimates of the capital works will remain valid.

 

Public Exhibition

The draft Plan was placed on public exhibition for the required statutory period of at least 28 days, from 7 May 2003 to 4 June 2003. A total of three submissions were received and are assessed in detail below.

 

Issues Raised in Submissions

The details of each submission are summarised in the table at Attachment 1. The main issues raised in submissions included the apportionment of the contributions; CPI changes, on-street parking - locations and timing and cost, comparisons with other town centres contributions in Randwick City and fairness of application of the contribution. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

 

Car parking – apportionment

One submission raised concerns that the proposed parking spaces in the draft Plan will be heavily used by existing residents, given existing parking problems, especially on race days, etc, and that Council should thus provide for part of the parking.

 

Comment: The draft Plan introduces a levy for additional parking spaces on-street but only for a small proportion of commercial/retail spaces attributable to any development and only if these are unable to be provided on-site. It is recognised that these spaces may be used by others living in or visiting the town centre and not those commercial/retail users of the new development. Similarly, commercial/retail users of the new development may also use existing car spaces in the town centre, as these may often be the most convenient. The requirement that 100% of the cost of each parking space to be paid for by the development is considered reasonable and consistent with other town centres along Anzac Parade. These spaces would normally be provided on-site at full cost to the development and will only be supported if not capable of being provided on-site.

 

The application of the draft Plan is limited to the increased demand for parking spaces arising from new development. Existing parking demands are being investigated separately by Council in terms of better parking management arrangements such as parking time limits, residential parking schemes, and support for better public transport. This follows on from the DCP investigations that recognise that long stay and commuter parking is limiting the opportunities for short stay customers for businesses in the town centre, and that Council needs to work on the long-term efficiency of the on-street parking in the town centre.

 

Townscape works – Apportionment

One submission raised concern over the apportionment of the townscape improvement works, at 90% from development and 10% from Council, as this differs from other commercial centres, does not address the current state of the centre due to lack of previous funding, and does not adequately consider future use by existing residents. It was also noted that there is no credit for existing commercial floor space, unlike other town centres.

 

Comment: The apportionment for the town centre recognises that, unlike other centres in Randwick City, the new planning controls for Kensington town centre introduced under LEP Amendment No 27 and DCP 2002 provide for and encourage a wider range of land uses, more intense development and comprehensive redevelopment of all sites in the town centre. It is anticipated that the entire centre will redevelop and change in its scale, nature and character, and thus a comprehensive upgrade of all aspects of the public domain is justified and integral to this change. Council’s current S94 Contributions Plan is now a few years old and is in need of a major review in line with the current practices and requirements. For other centres in Randwick City, the apportionment will be one of the many aspects reviewed in the overall S94 Contributions Plan review, (commencing shortly), to ensure that the Contributions Plan is keeping pace with and reflecting infrastructure and community needs generated by development.

 

S94 funding cannot address any previous lack of funding in an area; it must address only the expected future demand and resulting public facility requirements. This draft Plan cannot, therefore, consider previous funding issues for Kensington town centre. While it is agreed that existing residents (which will form a small percentage of the future town centre population) will continue to use the centre in future, and their increased use is also likely, the future commercial users and new residents are expected to generate the majority of long term use of the centre, given the expected numbers and frequencies of use of the centre.

 

The proposed commercial (or base) contribution for townscape improvement works takes a different measure to other town centres in Randwick City, which estimate S94 based on increased floor space (thus providing credit for existing floor space). This has proven to be unrepresentative of the increased demands placed on and generated for public facilities as a result of redevelopment or refurbishment, nor has it taken into account intensification of uses. The Kensington town centre calculations are based on the total anticipated floor space, recognising that the redevelopment of the existing floor space will involve more intensive use and demand from the equivalent existing floor space. When the S94 Contributions Plan is reviewed shortly, this recognition of the intensity of floor space use will also be considered for other town centres in Randwick City.

 

The townscape improvement works are a corner stone in the urban improvement of Kensington as a town centre which seeks to support and benefit from the educational, recreational and entertainment land uses in the locality. The townscape works in concert with the provisions of LEP Amendment No 27 and DCP 2002 seek to provide increased and different development opportunities than currently available.

 

CPI adjustment

One submission raised concerns that delays between the timing of collection of S94 contributions and undertaking the works may create a shortfall of funds for construction.

 

Comment: The draft Plan includes a measure to provide the adjustment of the contributions for Kensington town centre townscape and parking works, based on the generally accepted standard CPI (Consumer Price Index). The CPI adjustment in the draft Plan is made at the Construction Certificate (CC) stage of an approved development, at the same time as the S94 contributions are collected. Council will review the contributions on a quarterly basis when CPI figures are released so that the required contributions remain current. While this funding may not be spent until later, when further CPI changes may have occurred, Council undertakes standard accounting procedures that ensure that interest is received for the funds until spent and enables the funds to maintain their real value. This practice is in line with the S94 guidelines produced to support the legislation.

 

Cost of the Townscape Improvement Works – LEP/DCP costs

One submission raised concern that the Kensington town centre LEP and DCP has been included in the costs applicable under the draft Plan.

 

Comment: This is not the case. The LEP and DCP are not part of the S94 costings. These have been fully funded by Council, with support from Planning NSW funding under the UIP program.

 

Cost of the Car Parking Spaces

One submission noted that the cost of the on-street parking should recognise that it uses valuable public land and recoup costs from the developers as a result.

 

Comment: The draft Plan identifies the cost of on-street parking of $11, 759.35 per space. This covers all costs associated with surveying, designing and constructing these spaces and associated landscaping improvements and signage.

 

The parking spaces are being provided through the reconfiguration of existing parallel parking to 90 degree angle parking. The contribution is being levied against the provision of the additional parking spaces after the replacement of those existing spaces due to a reconfiguration of parking.

The land to be utilised for on-street parking is currently being used for this purpose and the contribution being levied is to enable an increase in the provision of parking and a more efficient use of that land. There is no land cost to Council or the community in relation to the provision of additional on-street car parking and there is thus no cost to be passed onto developers. The land will remain in public ownership, available for use by visitors to the Kensington town centre.

 

(See also comments under heading ‘Car Parking – locations’ which reviews the cost of each parking space).

 

Car parking – 10% limitation

One submission noted concern that on-street parking may be a cheap option and the 10% limit or ‘minor proportion’ of commercial parking on-street is too vague.

 

Comment: The draft Plan permits some of a development’s commercial parking requirements (as determined by Council’s Parking DCP) to be provided on-street, but only if on-site parking cannot be provided. This applies only to the commercial (and not the residential) parking requirements of a development. The draft Plan also provides that this should be limited to ‘up to a maximum of 10% or a minor proportion of the commercial/retail spaces required to be provided for the site’.

 

The intention of this limitation is to ensure that reliance on any on-street spaces would be minimal and parking is largely provided for on-site, while recognising that a development may still be acceptable where a minor proportion of the required spaces cannot be provided on-site but can be provided nearby, on-street, while at the same time improving the streetscape through new kerb and gutters, and associated improvements such as better and footpath access to these spaces. The wording in the draft Plan also recognisees the need for some flexibility while maintaining reasonableness. The legislation specifically highlights that a S94 Contributions Plan must be reasonable.

 

Car parking - locations

One submission noted that some of the proposed parking areas may not be located near the developments to be useful to the developments. Another submission raised concern over whether the number of parking spaces would be achievable in the identified streets (and also if the number is inaccurate, then the costs per car space would be underestimated). The proposal for 24 additional parking spaces on Darling Street was specifically queried, given existing driveways. The safety of increasing the parking spaces near the school and stables was also queried.

 

Comment: The streets identified in the draft Plan for the additional 235 car parking spaces are concentrated within the town centre and within reasonable walking distance to the centre. The parking provision is estimated to be sufficient for the 5-year planning period of the S94 amendment.

 

The draft Plan has been prepared on the basis of a survey of existing spaces and location of all driveways, consideration of potential driveway changes with new development and the need for landscaping/pedestrian access with any additional car parking provision. Before implementing any new parking provision, Council’s Assets and Design teams will prepare detailed design plans involving surveys, road and footpath and landscape design, lighting and signage.

 

The estimates of total parking spaces are based on a standard calculation of the total car spaces possible based on the existing parking figures, impediments such as driveways and the reconfiguration of parallel parking to 90 degree angle parking on one side of the street. These figures were reviewed following exhibition, in conjunction with Council’s Assets team, to clarify that these are achievable. To ensure that the estimated parking spaces will be met, where the calculations were previously rounded up to the nearest whole figure for the total number of parking spaces achievable in a street (eg 69.8 spaces was rounded to 70 spaces), the estimates have now been rounded down. This results in a reduction in the total parking numbers of 235 by four spaces, to 231 spaces. This is considered accurate and achievable while also enhancing and supplementing the townscape improvements.

 

The parking cost has been adjusted accordingly from $11,760 per space, and is now slightly higher, at $11,963 per space (see Attachment 3 for the updated table).

 

It is not proposed to introduce parking spaces where no on-street parking currently exists, rather to introduce additional parking. The introduction of additional parking around schools and stables has already occurred on Todman Avenue and this draft Plan proposes additional spaces on the other stables/school frontage along Bowral Street. Pedestrian and other safety (eg horse movements) has been considered and will be addressed in the detailed design of the new parking spaces and arrangements, and it is anticipated that all proposed access and travel could be safety accommodated.

 

Car Parking – Ascot Street

One submission noted that the Kensington town centre DCP promotes better pedestrian links between key land uses such as the racecourse and Kokoda Park, but this seems inconsistent with increasing the parking spaces on Ascot Street.

 

Comment: The proposed additional parking spaces on Ascot Street are not intended to limit pedestrian access along this street in any way. The draft Plan includes the proposed townscape improvement works, which will extend along the entire length of Ascot Street. This recognises the importance of linking the town centre, park and racecourse, even though part of the street lies outside the actual town centre boundary. The townscape improvement works and on-street parking proposals will combine to provide improved pedestrian access. The works include new and wider footpaths with Australian standard ramps and tactile paving, signage and lighting.

 

Consultation

One submission raised concern that the draft Plan was not part of an extensive consultation process, as undertaken throughout the UIP.

 

Comment: The draft Plan has been publicly exhibited according to the requirements of the Act and Regulation. All property owners with a current DA lodged with Council were advised of the draft Plan and the submission timeframe. The proposed townscape improvement works have been developed through the public domain improvement strategy, which was extensively exhibited in various drafts as part of the LEP/DCP exhibition and consultation processes over 2001 and 2002, including a month long shopfront exhibition within Kensington town centre itself, and various Council reports and consultations have noted that an amendment to Council’s S94 Contributions Plan would be prepared to levy new development for these works, given the benefits to these developments.

 

Doncaster Plaza DA – fairness, sunset clause

A submission on behalf of the Doncaster plaza site raised concerns that its current Development Application (DA) should not be subject to this draft Plan, given its preparation late in the DA processing. This was considered unreasonable, unfair, and biased against this development site, given that these costings were not included in the feasibility analysis for the project. Section 8 of the Local Government was referred to, which requires councils to raise ‘funds for local purposes by the fair imposition of rates, charges and fees’ and acting ‘without bias’.

 

Comment: Several DAs are currently being assessed by Council within the Kensington town centre and these are based on the new planning controls for the centre under LEP Amendment No. 27 and Kensington Town Centre DCP 2002. These developments will benefit from the new controls and greater development potential available within the town centre, which other applications in the centre are also expected to follow.

 

This draft Plan seeks contributions from development likely to generate increased demands for facilities and services within the town centre, which is relevant to the DA for the Doncaster Plaza site.

 

Council initially resolved on 26 February 2002 to prepare an amendment to Council’s S94 Contributions Plan, applying to Kensington town centre. The intention to prepare an amendment to Council’s S94 Contributions Plan, on the basis of the proposed works in the public domain improvement strategy, has been specifically raised in the numerous Council reports and consultation processes applicable to the UIP project. This has been an expected additional costing for new development for some time, which could have been broadly anticipated while awaiting the details of the draft Plan. As noted above, the applicants were also advised directly by phone of the exhibition and due date of submissions.

 

It is not intended to specifically exclude the Doncaster Plaza site or any other property subject to a current DA from the draft Plan. The townscape improvement works will provide a major benefit to these new developments by improving the streetscape of their properties and in line with a consistent and high quality streetscape throughout the town centre, thus contributing to the attraction of their developments. A sunset clause is thus considered inappropriate in the draft Plan.

 

Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993 sets out ‘The Council’s Charter’, being a set of principles to guide a council in carrying out its functions. It is considered that Council’s preparation of this draft Plan is consistent with the requirements of this charter, including fair application of levies across those developments for which increased demand will arise for use of the Kensington town centre’s public domain and parking, and applying these levies, via conditions of any development consent, consistently to all development applications that have or will be lodged with Council.

 

Changes made to the draft Plan following exhibition

A number of changes have been made to this draft Plan, in response to the submissions as discussed above, also for wording clarifications and further, to clarify the application of S94 contributions for intense forms of accommodation such as student housing and serviced apartments.

 

These intense types of accommodation do not fall simply under the categories of different dwelling sizes used in the S94 Contributions Plan. These provide accommodation which may have a more flexible accommodation arrangement, such as a number of rooms using shared facilities such as dining rooms. A separate category, noting that these will be based on a per bedroom basis rather than a per dwelling basis was specifically included, as was previously noted and discussed in the 29 April 2003 report to Council on this draft Plan.

 

The proposed 10% limit on applicants seeking commercial on-street car parking spaces was also clarified, to ensure that any use of this section of the draft Plan is limited to a minor proportion of the total required commercial spaces of any development.

 

CONCLUSION:

The draft Plan recognises the growth potential in Kensington town centre arising from the new planning framework for the centre under the LEP Amendment No 27 and DCP 2002, resulting in increased demand to be generated in the town centre by new residents, employees, shoppers and people generally at leisure. The draft Plan has been amended to clarify the plan’s wording and the parking space estimates and cost per space. These changes to the draft Plan following exhibition are considered to be minor and, while there is no statutory requirement to re-exhibit a draft Contributions Plan in any case, are not considered to warrant re-exhibition of the draft Plan. The required contributions, subject to apportionment and annual CPI adjustments, are considered reasonable based on current cost estimates of the townscape and parking costs, and for providing townscape improvements that are of a high quality standard expected of this model town centre improvement project.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

(a)          Approve the draft amendment to Council’s S94 Contributions Plan, as revised following public exhibition, for finalisation; and

 

(b)          Agree that the Director, Planning and Community Development may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical and formatting errors if required, in the finalisation of this amendment to Council’s S.94 Contributions Plan.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

1. Summary of submissions

2. Draft Amended S94 Plan - UNDER SEPARATE COVER

3. Updated Costing Sechedule - Car Parking - UNDER SEPARATE COVER   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KAREN ARMSTRONG

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A/MANAGER, STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 1 – Summary of Submissions

 

 

 

Submission

Matters raised

Response

1

Mr C Alexandrou

Re Lorne Ave site

§ Support for the LEP/DCP and levying of S94 contributions, while some concerns about draft Plan’s details

§ Apportionment - car parking – concern over additional parking providing only for demand from new development, given parking problems generated by high demand uses such as the Racecourse and Peters. This new parking would also be heavily utilised by residents. Thus council should provide for a portion of this new parking, as others will also use it. (90 degree angle parking is not in itself criticised – will help address the parking problems of the area

§ Apportionment - townscape improvements

-     not correct that the need for works is directly generated by anticipated development - the centre has fallen into relative decay with little spent by council over the past years, in contrast to other areas.

-     Ratio of 90:10 benefit is incorrect – while a ratio is difficult to assess, the benefits shall all be experienced by existing residents

-     Ratio for other town centres is – 90:10 (Council: developer), with 10:90 for Kensington, where reasons do not show Kensington is different

-     Rates recognition should be given – re rates spent in the past and relatively small benefits received – which should provide for basic paving and minor beautification – recognition of ongoing works and lack of previous works should be given

-     Measure could consider e3xisting residents in the catchment and expected residents (3388), and allocate spending in this ratio

§ LEP/DCP expenditures should not be included in S94 works – this is a basic right of residents to have development controls for an area in place. The controls are not a windfall and are modest compared to other centre in the LGA.

§ Timing of proposed car parking – CPI indexing at Construction certificate stage may create a shortfall given that there will be a delay till full funds are collected for construction

§ Location of proposed car parking - the identified streets for more parking encounter heavier parking on race days and Peters’ sales. May be a problem where this parking is well away from developments.

§ Lack of credit for existing floor space – cl4 allows no credit for existing floor space, unlike other town centres – no reason to treat Kensington differently – not a Greenfield site – no credit is akin to a total change in character rather than an upgrading of the centre

§ Lack of consultation with property owners – little or no consultation with owners on the specifics of the draft Plan, which differs so widely from other plans –meetings would have helped, esp. for those already planning developments

Noted.

 

 

See report heading ‘Car parking - Apportionment’ for comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See report heading ‘Townscape  Improvements - Apportionment’ for comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See report heading ‘Costs of works – LEPs/DCPs’ for comments

 

 

See report heading ‘CPI Adjustment’

 

 

 

See report heading ‘ Car Parking- locations’

 

 

 

See report heading ‘Townscape Improvements – Apportionment’

 

 

 

See report heading ‘ Consultation’

 

2

Mr M Cook

Re Doncaster Plaza site

§ Feasibility of project adversely affected - Council’s Contributions Plan did not provide for townscape works when feasibility examined or DA lodged for this site, with S94 requirements now conditioned in approved DA

§ Additional cost is unfair, unjust and oppressive – as per Local Govt Act 1993

§ Savings provision requested -  Fairness would be achieved by a savings provision in the draft Plan to exclude this DA. If not, DA deferral until after the draft Plan is in place contravenes s8 of the Local Govt Act and shows council bias in its regulatory functions in its own financial interests

See report heading’ Doncaster Plaza site – fairness, sunset clause ’ for comments

 

As above

 

As above

 

 

 

 

 

3

Mr R Cresdee

§ Public amenity improvements welcomed however concerns over amenity of increased parking

§ Parking on side streets – concern over large % increases proposed –if achievable given driveways

§ Additional parking on Darling St – already has angle parking, so 24 additional spaces may be difficult to achieve

§ Parking and Safety concerns – near schools and stables

§ Parking and DCP intention for Ascot Street – DCP promotes better pedestrian links of the centre, racecourse and Kokoda park, esp. via this street – large parking increases is inconsistent

§ Accuracy of On-street Parking Cost – if spaces not achievable, costs per car space will be higher – need provision in the draft Plan to adjust the figures for inaccuracies when surveys done

§ On-street parking a cheap option for developers – reference to the limitation of 10% or ‘minor proportion’ of commercial parking on-street in the draft Plan is vague and needs rewording

§ Parking already a bane for residents – the draft Plan should recognise value of the public land to be used for parking area and recoup costs from developers

Noted

 

 

See report heading ‘Car Parking – Locations’

As above

 

 

As above

 

As Above

 

 

 

 

See report heading ‘Car Parking – Locations’

 

 

See report heading ‘Car Parking - 10% limitation’

 

 

See report heading – Cost of the Car Parking Spaces’

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Shade Cloth Sun Protection to all playgrounds in Randwick City. (98/S/4552 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services submit a report to Council on the feasibility of installing shade cloth sun protection above the top of all children’s playgrounds throughout the City of Randwick.

 

11.2     By Councillor Matthews – Safety in Children’s Playground in Randwick City. (98/S/4552  xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council have a proper inspection of all children’s playgrounds throughout the City of Randwick for safety reasons, particularly the playground equipment.

 

11.3          By Councillor Seng – Urban Water Management System. (98/S/2568 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager be asked to produce a report on the innovative urban water management system that is currently being trialed by Kogarah Council, and that the report should also mention whether such concept and practices can similarly be applied by Randwick Council.

 

11.4          By Councillor Seng – Recruitment of new General Manager.  (98/S/0823 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Randwick Council shall not delay any further but to proceed immediately with the recruitment of the new General Manager.

 

11.5          By Councillor Seng – Selection Committee for Recruitment of new General Manager.  (98/S/0823 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a new Selection & Recruitment Committee consisting of the Mayor and each representative from the ALP, Liberal Party, The Greens and an independent be established immediately to be involved in the appointment of the new General Manager.

 

11.6          By Councillor Seng – Specialist Recruitment firm for new General Manager.  (98/S/0823 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That an established Local Government recruitment specialist firm such as Lgov or McArthur Management Services be appointed to take fully responsibility in the recruitment of the new General Manager.

 

11.7          By Councillor Seng – Remuneration Package for new General Manager. (98/S/0823 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the new General Manager’s remuneration package be reviewed to bring it into line with the level of duties and responsibilities comparable to other metropolitan Sydney Councils.

 

11.8          By Councillor Matthews – Abolishing Stamp Duty for first home buyers.  (98/S/0181 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council request the State Government, through the Premier and Member for Maroubra, Mr Bob Carr, to abolish Stamp Duty charges for first home buyers.

 

11.9          By Councillor Whitehead – Report on Recruitment of new General Manager.  (98/S/0823 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report, providing all information available on the matter at that date, regarding the current situation on the selection of the next General Manager for Randwick City Council, be distributed to all Councillors by the next meeting of Council.