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

 

22nd August, 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, 26TH AUGUST, 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, 22ND JULY, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

4.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 44/2003 - COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE - PROVISION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS AT BYRON STREET INTERSECTION.

2

 

4.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 45/2003 - ANZAC PARADE / HAIG STREET / WISE STREET INTERSECTION - PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS.

9

 

4.3                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 46/2003 - RANDWICK COMMUNITY ORGANIC GARDEN.

11

 

4.4                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 47/2003 - REFORM AND RE-STRUCTURE SUBMISSION.

13

 

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2003 - JUNE 2003 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002-05 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

17

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2003 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL.

18

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2003 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

20

 

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 42/2003 - AEOLIA STREET, RANDWICK - PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE.

23

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 43/2003 - MOTOR VEHICLE COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE (CTP).

27

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 44/2003 - THE SPOT, RANDWICK - STREETSCAPE WORKS.

29

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 45/2003 - PROPOSED ALCOHOL FREE ZONE - SHORT STREET, RANDWICK.

32

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 46/2003 - ANZAC PARADE ROAD CLOSURE ADJACENT TO PRINCE HENRY HOSPITAL - CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS.

34

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 20/2003 - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER - LEGISLATIVE REFORM - AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT & LOCAL COURTS ACT.

41

 

 

9           Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 61/2003 - PROPOSED DOWN ZONING OF PROPERTY IN COWPER STREET, RANDWICK.

44

 

9.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 62/2003 - USE OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SEPP) NO.1 IN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - UPDATE FOR FOURTH QUARTER OF 2002/03 FINANCIAL YEAR.

56

 

9.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 63/2003 - 214-238 ANZAC PARADE AND 14 DARLING STREET, KENSINGTON.

58

 

9.4                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 64/2003  53 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK.

165

 

9.5                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 65/2003 - 22A PAULING AVE, COOGEE.

197

9.6                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 66/2003 - 143-147 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE.

216

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.7                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 67/2003 - 80 AUSTRAL STREET, MALABAR.

281

 

9.8                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 68/2003 - 159-171 ANZAC PARADE & 1 LORNE AVENUE KENSINGTON.

295

 

9.9                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 69/2003 - 832 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA - THE GOLDEN GROVE TAVERN, VARIATION OF SUNDAY TRADING HOURS - LICENSING COURT PROCEEDINGS NO. 220301.00.

407

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                      

By Councillor Procopiadis – Womens Athletic Fields.

412

11.2

By Councillor Procopiadis – 276 Doncaster Avenue and Edward Street, Kingsford.

412

11.3

By Councillor Matthews – Bus Shelters in the City of Randwick

412

11.4

By Councillor White – Party Hard Party Safe Program. 

412

11.5

By Councillor White – Installation of Pram ramps at Ireton Street and Prince Edwards Street, Malabar. 

412

11.6

By Councillor White – Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park

412

11.7

By Councillor Matson –  Concern Re Coogee Beach Plan of Management Proposal for Ross Jones Memorial Pool. 

412

11.8

By Councillor Andrews – Sporting Hall of Fame. 

413

11.9

By Councillor Andrews –Alcohol Free Zones In Maroubra Junction. 

413

11.10

By Councillor Matson – Qualification of Council’s Position on Structural Reform and Proposed Border Changes. 

413

11.11

By Councillor Matson – Need for Bus Shelter at Bream/Mount Street Intersection.

413

11.12

By Councillor Greenwood – Opposition to Proposed Closure of Department of Education & Training District Offices and Impacts on TAFE. 

414

11.13

By Councillor Bastic – Traffic Calming Devices in Elphinstone Road, Randwick.

414

11.14

By Councillor Bastic - Construct Fence in Elphinstone Road adjoining Randwick Cemetery

414

11.15

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Garbage Bins. 

414

11.16

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Garbage Bins - Havelock Ave, Coogee. 

414

11.17

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Upgrading of Havelock Ave, Coogee. 

415

11.18

By Councillor Matson – Amalgamation Proposals and Need for Urgent Strategy Plan to Deal with Health Risks from Contaminated Botany Bay Aquifer. 

415

11.19

By Councillor Matson – Complaint re: Randwick Rugby Club Adherence to Conditions of Liquor License. 

415

11.20

By Councillor Whitehead – Kensington Town Centre. 

415

11

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 21/2003 - SERVICES FOR VOICE, MOBILE AND DATA.

416

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 44/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE - PROVISION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS AT BYRON STREET INTERSECTION

 

 

DATE:

18 August, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0197/02    R/0143/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mid-block pedestrian traffic signals are located on Coogee Bay Road, between Byron Street and Melody Street, which serve the needs of children attending Coogee Primary School.  The signals also serve pedestrian crossing movements generated by the adjacent shops, businesses, bus stops and surrounding residential dwellings.

 

The traffic signals were installed many years ago when the traffic flows at the intersection of Coogee Bay Road & Byron Street were significantly less than they are today.  The signals were provided in a mid-block pedestrian form at that time, most likely due to funding constraints and the absence of ‘intersection needs’.

 

Unusually, the signals are located right on the intersection (ie. the signal post for the westbound stop line is in line with the Byron Street building line, as shown on Plan A).  At the same time the eastbound stop line is only some 24 metres from the Melody Street building line.

 

The location of the traffic signals results in a circumstance where drivers turning left from Byron Street (to travel west in Coogee Bay Road) cannot see the signal located at the stop line and naturally concentrate their attention on vehicles approaching from the east.  As a result it is a very common occurrence for drivers to turn left out of Byron Street and proceed through the red light while pedestrians are crossing Coogee Bay Road with a ‘walk’ signal.

 

This has been a longstanding unsatisfactory road safety circumstance recognised by the RTA who have acted in the past to install additional signs and signal displays.  These attempts by the Authority have not overcome the hazardous situation.

 

This traffic signal locational circumstance is addressed in the RTA’s Traffic Signal Practice - Design Manual, Section 13 (December 1992), which clearly states that signalised mid-block pedestrian crossings must be located at a minimum of 30 metres from any side street. 

 

The staff and parents of children attending the school are extremely concerned at the ongoing prevalence of vehicles driving through the red signal (while children are still at the crossing) after turning left out of Byron Street.  Observations undertaken at the site have served to confirm that this is in fact a frequent occurrence and that the measures undertaken by the RTA have been unsuccessful in abating the hazard.

 

Four options have been identified and assessed which would potentially address this unsatisfactory road safety situation.

 

Option A:         relocate the signals further west;

 

Option B:         close Byron Street at Coogee Bay Road;

 

Option C:         relocate the signals to incorporate the Byron Street intersection;

 

Option D:         relocate the signals to incorporate the Melody Street intersection.

 

OPTION A:

 

Relocation of the signals to the west would not provide an acceptable outcome as:

 

-           it would create a similar proximity problem with relation to the Melody Street intersection

 

-           it would result in a significant impact on the parking provisions on both sides of Coogee Bay Road

 

-           it would not achieve accordance with the RTA design criteria.

 

OPTION B:

 

Closure of Byron Street at Coogee Bay Road is not considered to be an acceptable outcome as it would:

 

-           reduce access for the school and the ability for parents to set-down and pick-up children

 

-           reduce circulation flexibility in the area

 

-           place additional vehicle demands on the uncontrolled Melody Street intersection.

 

OPTION C:

 

Rearrangement of the signals to incorporate the Byron Street intersection would be a satisfactory outcome for maximising safety and providing greater flexibility for pedestrians. The design could incorporate reuse of a significant amount of the existing signal components. 

 

It should be noted that the number of pedestrians crossing the subject intersection, particularly during the AM and PM peak hours during School Days meets the warrant established under category B5 of Appendix B, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 13 AUSTROADS.

 

The only disadvantage is that this work would most likely need to be undertaken in school holiday times unless some careful staged installation arrangement can be achieved.

 

OPTION D:

 

This provision of signals at the Melody Street intersection could be possible, however:

 

-           this would be a much more expensive outcome (than rearrangement to incorporate Byron Street) as an entirely new four-way intersection signal control arrangement would be required.

 

-           this would most likely require removal of the existing angle parking along Melody Street

 

-           this would not be convenient for pedestrians crossing at the shops, etc. 

 

It is considered that Option C presents the most appropriate outcome, and Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer, working closely with Mr Ross Nettle, an expert in Traffic Signal Designs, has prepared a traffic signal design plan for this proposed signal arrangement (see attached Plan B).

 

Much of the existing signal components can be re-used for this arrangement including:

 

            .           controller

            .           power and SCATS connections

            .           posts

            .           lanterns.

 

Therefore the signals could be rearranged relatively easily, quickly and with a modest cost.

 

The existing arrangement of the traffic signals results in an unsafe vehicle / pedestrian conflict circumstance and quite clearly does not accord with the RTA’s design criteria. 

 

The RTA has previously recognised the road safety problem and design deficiency by its attempts to apply remedial solutions.  It is apparent that the actions taken have not overcome the problem (or rectified the design deficiency). This is particularly the case, as it is understood that the RTA has in recent times been quite forthright in opposing proposals to install pedestrian signals where the 30 metre criteria cannot be satisfied.

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee has considered and recommended adoption of the design proposed by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer.

 

ISSUES:

The Principal and the Parents and Citizens Association of Coogee Public School have expressed concern regarding the location of the exiting mid-block traffic signals on Coogee Bay Road, west of Byron Street.

 

Council’s previous representations through the Randwick Traffic Committee to reconsider the matter of relocating the signals to the east of Byron Street were not supported by the RTA on the grounds of accident history. A review of recorded accidents at the intersection revealed a total of 2 accidents for the six-year period 1997 to 2002, one of those accidents involved a vehicle turning out of Byron Street, and none involved injuries.

 

Latest investigation by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has revealed that the signals are currently installed at an inappropriate location, with the signal post stop line being at the intersection building line, therefore not in accordance with RTA’s Traffic Signal Practice - Design Manual. There has been a longstanding unsatisfactory road safety situation, and previous minor attempts by RTA to overcome this hazardous situation have not been successful.

 

Rearrangement of the signals to incorporate the whole intersection of Coogee Bay Road and Byron Street, providing safe pedestrian crossings under signal control, across Byron Street and both arms of Coogee Bay Road, is estimated at $90,000.  However, if the abovementioned rearrangement of signals (subject to RTA’s approval of use of existing equipment on-site) could be achieved, the estimated cost could be reduced to $57,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Rearrangement of the signals to incorporate the Byron Street intersection would be a satisfactory outcome to alleviate the current problem of drivers turning left out of Byron Street and proceeding through the red light while children are still at the crossing.

 

The RTA must be requested to rectify this longstanding unsatisfactory road safety circumstance.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.         RTA be requested to approve and implement, as a matter of urgency, the traffic signal design as presented by Council (Option C), proposing rearrangement of existing signals in Coogee Bay Road at the intersection of Byron Street incorporating signal controls at the whole intersection on the basis that Council’s design fully accords with RTA’s Traffic Signal Practice - Design Manual as the existing arrangement is hazardous.

 

2.         Council meet the cost of implementing the necessary work on a 50/50 basis with RTA.                                                                                                 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

New Signal Plan.

 

………………………………

 

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 45/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANZAC PARADE / HAIG STREET / WISE STREET INTERSECTION - PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0031/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council through its resolutions and Council officers through the Traffic Committee and correspondence to the RTA have from some time been trying to convince the RTA that the above unsignalised intersection is dangerous and should be signalised immediately before someone is injured or killed at this location.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee requested the provision of traffic signals at the above location in 2001.  The Randwick Traffic Committee endorsed this suggestion and this subsequently became a Council resolution, and the appropriate correspondence dated 3 October 2001 was sent to the RTA.

 

The Maroubra Branch of the ALP approached Council by letter dated 30 May 2002 about the dangers at this intersection.  As the matter had been previously dealt with by the Randwick Traffic Committee, a follow-up letter dated 21 June 2002 was sent to the RTA requesting a response to Council’s letter of 3 October 2001.

 

In a response dated 15 July 2002 the RTA recommended other actions at this location due to the close proximity of other traffic control lights in Anzac Parade both to the north and south of this location.

 

At a Traffic Committee meeting held on 10 September 2002 the RTA’s suggestions were rejected as having ‘no impact on providing safer conditions for pedestrians crossing Anzac Parade.  The following Traffic Committee recommendation was subsequently adopted by Council and correspondence dated 8 October 2002 reflecting this resolution was sent to the RTA.

 

·          the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Anzac Parade/Haig Street/Wise Street.

 

·          the installation of a marked foot crossing on the northbound carriageway in Anzac Parade at Wise Street.

 

·          the installation of a concrete kerb blister on the eastern side of Anzac Parade on approach to the marked foot crossing to reduce the exposure time for pedestrians crossing Anzac Parade at Haig Street.

 

At its ordinary meeting held on 22 October 2002, as a result of a Motion Pursuant to Notice by Councillor Andrews, Council resolved:

 

“That Council seek funding from the RTA for traffic signals to be installed at the intersection of Haig Street / Anzac Parade crossover.”

 

A letter dated 5 February 2003 reflecting this resolution was sent to the RTA.  Since no response was received a further letter dated 22 July 2003 referring to Council’s previous correspondence and reflecting the above resolution was also sent to the RTA.  (Copies of all of the relevant correspondence referred to in this minute are attached.)

 

CONCLUSION:

 

I regard this matter as a serious one and have sent a letter reflecting the above chronology directly to the Premier, The Hon. Bob Carr, MP for Maroubra on 21 August 2003.  Traffic signals need to be provided at this location before a serious accident occurs.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Mayor seek the intervention of the Premier and Local Member, the Hon. Bob Carr, for the urgent pedestrian signalisation of Anzac Parade at the intersection of Haig Street and Wise Street crossover.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

17 pages of previous correspondence - under separate cover

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 46/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Randwick Community Organic Garden

 

 

DATE:

18 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2740

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Community Organic Garden (RCOG) was founded in 1993 by local residents on land within the Department of Defence site, Bundock Street, Randwick. The RCOG operated successfully until it became necessary to close the garden in 2000, to allow for the redevelopment of the site. At the time of closure the organisation had approximately 60 members, consisting of 45 gardeners with individual plots and 15 on a waiting list.

 

The master planning for the redevelopment of the Defence site did not provide for the relocation of the ROCG within the surplus land, however Council gave a verbal undertaking to endeavour to find an alternative location for the garden, in recognition of the valuable role that the community garden plays. A suitable area at the northern end of Paine Reserve, Kingsford has been identified as a potential site for the ROCG.

 

The RCOG is unique within the city of Randwick and forms part of a network of organisations involved in gardening throughout the Sydney region. The positive impact of community gardening and the community gardening movement is recognised worldwide.

 

ISSUES:

 

The attached proposal covers in depth the background, needs and management framework of the ROCG. In short the RCOG once established will be self funding, however assistance from Council is sought on a one off basis to cover some establishment costs and needs. After some considerable delay the RCOG can now access, for a reasonable fee,  public indemnity insurance as an independent community group.

 

Membership of the RCOG and community interest in the reopening of the garden remains strong. The Randwick Community Organic Garden is an organisation governed by a democratic constitution and the group plans to be come incorporated prior to re-opening.

 

Establishment costs have been estimated at just under $11,000 and the RCOG is currently seeking grant funding through the Randwick Community Development and Support  Expenditure Scheme, to supplement money raised through membership and fund raising activities. However Council has been requested to assist in the garden’s establishment by, waving the Development Application fee, setting the annual licence fee at $70 and covering the cost of plans sourced from the Council nursery.

 

The community garden will provide for a number of recreational functions by providing sitting areas, ornamental garden areas, gathering areas, together with waste and recycling education and sustainable practices of organic gardening/permaculture. The use of the land, currently zoned 6A Public Open Space, would be permissible subject to development consent.

 

The land tenure arrangements are such that a five year lease would be required for the use of the land, as part of the proposed operation falls within an unused road reserve. Despite Council having no intentions to activate the road reserve for road functions, under the Roads Act Council can only lease the portion for a period of 5 years, without closing it.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The establishment of Randwick Community Garden within Paine Reserve, Kingsford, will provide a valuable community resource and a unique opportunity for residents to become involved in organic gardening and its recreational opportunities.

 

The vision of the RCOG is to create a place to express insights and creativity, celebrate a healthy lifestyle and develop a sense of community, whilst fully integrating with and incorporating the physical essence of the area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

1.         The Co-ordinator of the Randwick Community Organic Garden be invited to submit a Development Application to Council based on the proposal to use land with Paine Reserve, Kingsford.

2.         Council waive fees and charges in relation to the Development Application.

3.         A five year lease be prepared for the use of the land by the Randwick Community Organic Garden.

4.         Council agree to set the annual licence fee at the minimum rate, currently $70.

5.         Authority be granted for the Common Seal of the Council to be fixed to the lease agreement between Council and the Randwick Community Organic Garden Inc.

6.         Council waive the fee for initial establishment plants, sourced from the Council nursery, up to a maximum of $500.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Randwick Community Organic Garden proposal for use land within Payne Reserve, Kingsford - UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 47/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

REFORM AND RE-STRUCTURE SUBMISSION

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0063

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 12th August, 2003 gave preliminary consideration to Mayor’s Minute No. 39/2003 relating to a submission on Reform and Re-structure to be submitted to the Minister for Local Government.

 

ISSUES:

 

At that Meeting, I agreed to have my Mayor’s Minute deferred to allow Councillors sufficient time to consider the matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

That Council consider the contents of Mayor’s Minute No. 39/2003 and its attachment and determine the matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         The report attached to the Mayor’s Minute No.39 be endorsed by Council as the basis of Council’s response to the request for submissions on boundary alterations and structural reform called for by the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Tony Kelly; and

 

b)         Council delegate to the Mayor the authority to pursue the principles of that Minute and the accompanying report with the New South Wales Government and neighbouring Councils and take whatever steps necessary to ensure the optimum outcome for the residents of Randwick City Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Mayor's Minute No. 39/2003; and

2.         Submission to Minister for Local Government on Reform and Restructure of Local Government in the Metropolitan Inner Sydney Suburbs - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 39/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Reform and Re-structure Submission

 

 

DATE:

12 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0063

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In May 2003 the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Tony Kelly invited Randwick City Council to develop and forward a cogent boundary alteration proposal. At the Council meeting on the 27 May 2003 Council resolved that Randwick Council accepts the Minister’s invitation to submit a boundary proposal and a formal proposal be prepared and brought back to Council for Council’s endorsement. (Resolution 104)

 

On 3 July 2003 the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Tony Kelly wrote to all councils in NSW encouraging them to consider more fundamental changes than minor boundary changes or alterations. In order to ensure that the Boundaries Commission can consult widely with local communities, the Minister requested that all proposals should be before him by 31 August 2003.

 

ISSUES:

 

The principal thrust of the structural reform options that Randwick has proposed is to provide:

 

·    Greater equity and efficiency in service delivery

·    An improved financial base and sustainability

·    An increased ability to maintain and renew infrastructure.

 

Randwick strongly supports a total reform of the structure of local government with the creation of larger, better resourced, efficient and more equitable local government areas having a strong revenue and economic base with a regional outlook.

 

At the same time, the proposed boundary alteration options have taken into consideration the community of interest, catchment base, planning and critical mass arguments.

 

The three options for boundary adjustment would significantly enhance the revenue base of Randwick, which together with the economies of scale that would be achieved and the application of more efficient practices, would result in better services and facilities for the whole of the expanded area.

In relation to boundary change, the preferred option for Randwick is described in Option One, however all options call for the consolidation of Port Botany. There is a strong imperative to bring Port Botany and its adjacent port related land under the planning control of a single local government area, as there is for Sydney Airport and its associated activities.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council has once again confirmed its commitment to reform. Randwick supports consideration of major reform of the structure of local government in the inner city and south eastern area of Sydney and we support a ‘clean sheet’ approach.  We have also put forward some detailed options for more specific boundary reform.

 

The State Government must articulate the optimum structure for local government in NSW, and Randwick invites all other local councils to indicate to the Government their willingness to engage in reform.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

(a)        The report attached to the Mayor’s Minute No.39 be endorsed by Council as the basis of Council’s response to the request for submissions on boundary alterations and structural reform called for by the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Tony Kelly.

 

(b)        Council delegate to the Mayor the authority to pursue the principles of this report with the New South Wales Government and neighbouring Councils and take whatever steps necessary to ensure the optimum outcome for the residents of Randwick City Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Submission

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

JUNE 2003 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002-05 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

DATE:

18 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. JUNE 2003 QTR REVIEW - 2002-05 MANAGEMENT PLAN (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1698 2265, P/017479, P/016646, P/015555, P/001345, P/002127, P/007780, P/001537

 

 

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 the licence agreement between Council and –

 

1.         Coogee Life Surf Saving Club Inc  (Y03074-03) for the property known as the Kiosk on the promenade at Coogee Beach (in Grant Reserve). Council is the Trustee of the Dunningham Reserve (R82505, R36363, D500218) Reserve Trust dedicated on 29 April 1960 for the purpose of public recreation. The lease is for the term 1 October 2002 to 1 October 2022.

2.         Toni Hamlin (T/As Munchekins Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 163 Perry Street, Matraville.

3.         Ali Baba Lebanese Cuisine Pty Ltd (T/As Ali Baba’s Lebanese Cuisine Maroubra) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 936 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.

4.         Phillip Michaelopoulos (T/As Ambrosia On the Spot) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 22 St. Pauls Street, Randwick.

5.         Yong Yong (T/As Chicken Out) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 201A Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Jeff Blackman (T/As Deep Blue Bistro) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 56 Carr Street, Coogee.

7.         Jim Papodopoulos (T/As Melonhead) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 256 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

8.         Vincent Xuereb (T/As Eastside Ceramics) for the property known as Shop 3, 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction for a lease period of five (5) years, commencing 16 March 2003 and expiring 15 March 2008.

 

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 licence agreement between Council as the Trustee of Dunningham Reserve (R82505, R36363, D500218) Reserve Trust and Coogee Life Surf Saving Club Inc for the Kiosk on the Coogee beach promenade.

2.         Toni Hamlin (T/As Munchekins Café) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 163 Perry Street, Matraville.

3.         Ali Baba Lebanese Cuisine Pty Ltd (T/As Ali Baba’s Lebanese Cuisine Maroubra) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 936 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.

4.         Phillip Michaelopoulos (T/As Ambrosia On the Spot) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 22 St. Pauls Street, Randwick.

5.         Yong Yong (T/As Chicken Out) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 201A Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Jeff Blackman (T/As Deep Blue Bistro) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 56 Carr Street, Coogee.

7.         Jim Papodopoulos (T/As Melonhead) for the purpose of outdoor dining at 256 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

8.         Vincent Xuereb (T/As Eastside Ceramics) for the property known as Shop 3, 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction for a lease period of five (5) years, commencing 16 March 2003 and expiring 15 March 2008.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0018

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In late 2000 the La Perouse Interagency Program “Saving our Kids Lives” commenced.   The issues that the Interagency deal with include:

 

·          Parenting Issues

·          Health Issues (including drug & alcohol misuse by both parents, children & young people)

·          High levels of violence and vandalism amongst children and young people. (The most “at risk” group that has been identified are those between the ages of 8-12 years.

 

Council is part of this Interagency with relevant Community Development Officers attending the meetings.  These Officers are also involved in various projects and working parties, undertaken by the Interagency where appropriate.

 

The group has highlighted that there is a lack of co-ordination between services, delivering existing and planned programs to children/young people in the La Perouse area.

 

A recently completed Needs Analysis conducted by The Shack Youth Services has highlighted the fact that the area is void of any experienced and qualified local Management Committee who could act as an auspicing body for any funding which may be forthcoming.

 

ISSUES:

 

The NSW Department of Community Services has approached Council regarding the interim auspicing of some re-current funding they have allocated for the employment of a part-time position located at La Perouse. The level of funding for the Community Development Worker is $33,286 per year.   In addition DoCS will provide one off funding of $31,588 to cover resource costs and some funding to allow for an increase in the number of hours for the position. 

 

The role of this Officer would be to streamline existing service provision and ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach to planned future programs.  The worker would also establish a local community Management Committee and skill up this committee in the areas of roles & responsibilities for incorporated organizations, consultations, planning and the development of funding submissions etc.

 

Already the initial discussions regarding this position have adopted a “Whole of Government” approach with The Dept of Community Services and the Dept of Education working collaboratively with Council. The worker would primarily operate from an office at the La Perouse Public School.

 

It is envisaged that this worker would be part of Council’s Community Development Team and although the location of the position would be at La Perouse, the Community Development Coordinator would supervise the position.

 

The Department of Community Services has approached Council to act as the interim auspice for the project, which realistically would be for a period of a minimum of twelve months, possibly extending to eighteen months, dependent on the timing of the establishment of a local Management Committee, who could then take on the project.

 

Costs to Council would be approximately $2,500 - $3,000 pa and these costs would be related to stationary.  As this matter was discussed prior to the finalisation of 2003/2004 Budget, the funds have been set aside for this project within the Community Development budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The project is an important initiative as it streamlines the provision of existing services and will identify the future needs within the area.

 

Over recent times the collaborative ”Whole of Community” approach that is now being adopted is a sign that both the State and Local Governments and the community itself, have a commitment to work together to address the many long term issues of the area, with developing long term strategies.

 

Council is in a position to facilitate this process by ensuring that appropriate Government Agencies address the issues of this community, with adequate funding and resourcing.

 

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

 

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

 

1.         Schedule A with NSW Department of Community Services in respect of funding of Community Development Officer to be located at La Perouse Primary School for a period of 12 months to a total of $31,588.

 

Schedule A with NSW Department of Community Services in respect to one-off funding for Community Development Officer to be located at La Perouse Primary School to a total of $33,286.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 

1.         That Council agrees to accept the NSW Department of Community Services Funding for the interim auspice of the Community Development Worker position, and that Council’s Community Development Team continue to support the efforts and activities of the community at La Perouse and play an active role in capacity building of the local community

 

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

 

a.         Schedule A with NSW Department of Community Services in respect of funding of Community Development Officer to be located at La Perouse Primary School for a period of 12 months to a total of $31,588.

 

b.         Schedule A with NSW Department of Community Services in respect of one-off funding for Community Development Officer to be located at La Perouse Primary School to a total of $33,286.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 42/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AEOLIA STREET, RANDWICK - PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE.

 

 

DATE:

14 August, 2003

FILE NO:

R/00100/00 xr R/0010/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 3rd December, 2002, Council considered a report dealing with two road closures in and around Brigidine College and resolved:

 

that Council make application to close and sell the section of Aeolia Street shown as Area 1 in Attachment A and the section of unnamed unmade lane off Coogee Bay Road shown as Area 2 in Attachment A, subject to:

 

(a)        all survey and legal costs to be borne by the Catholic Education Office;

 

(b)        a mutually acceptable valuer being retained by Council and paid for by the Catholic Education Office to determine the value of the subject lane;

 

(c)        Catholic Education Office ensuring that none of the public utility authorities including AGL, Energy Australia, Telstra, etc. have any objection to the closure and sale of the subject lane;

 

(d)        the Catholic Education Office advising the Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment of the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to Council making application for this closure; and

 

(e)        the General Manager being given delegated authority to negotiate the valuation, closure of the road and the eventual sale of the land.

 

Attachment A shows the section of Aeolia Street as Area 1 and the section of unnamed lane off Coogee Bay Road as Area 2.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council and the Department of Lands have received objections from the owners of properties 11-13 and 15-17 Perouse Road.  These properties have a rear frontage to the unnamed lane off Coogee Bay Road and have claimed a number of issues including access as their reasons for objection.  While access to their properties from this lane is not apparent, the Department of Lands will not approve such a closure while the remotest access issues exist.

 

The following letter dated 25th July, 2003 has been received from the Department of Lands

 

Proposed Road Closing – Lane off Coogee Bay Road, Randwick adjoining Brigidine College

 

Reference is made to Council’s application to close two sections of lane adjoining the Brigidine College.

 

Following letters of objection from adjoining owners to the closing of the section of lane shown by orange colour (diagram “X”) prior to advertising of the proposal, an inspection of the site was carried out.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the lane appears to be within the school grounds, adjoining owners have indicated a use of the lane for delivery and removal of building materials etc. and a desire to retain the rear access to their properties for safety reasons.

 

As the adjoining owners purchased their premises with two road frontages they are entitled to retain those frontages and on this basis it is advised that the application will be reduced to exclude the lane shown by orange colour (diagram “X”).  The eastern end of Aeolia Street only, will be advertised for proposed closing.

 

It is noted that an application to close the lane shown by orange colour (diagram “X”) in 1972 was also refused due to objections by the adjoining owners.”

 

As indicated above, the letter confirms that the closure application for the unnamed lane off Coogee Bay road has been rejected and that the Aeolia Street closure will be advertised.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It appears from the above correspondence that the Aeolia Street closure should proceed.  The representative from the Catholic Education office who is dealing with these road closures has indicated that there is more urgency about the Aeolia Street closure than the other one since the Brigidine College actually has buildings constructed on the subject section of Aeolia Street.  However, he also indicates that the school currently maintains the unnamed road off Coogee Bay Road and this may not continue in the future.  It should be noted that maintenance of this road is difficult as there is no easy access off Coogee Bay Road to this unnamed lane.  However, one of the objectors has offered to maintain this land and Council officers will have to consider all of the relevant issues if this situation is to occur.

 

It is therefore considered that Council should accept the Department ‘s decision to refuse the closure of the unnamed lane off Coogee Bay Road and request that the closure application for the relevant section of Aeolia Street be expedited.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Department of Lands be advised that:-

 

1.         Council notes the Department’s decision to refuse the closure of the unnamed lane off Coogee Bay Road shown as Area 2 on Attachment A; and

 

2.         Council requests that the closure of the section of Aeolia Street shown as Area 1 on Attachment A be expedited.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 43/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MOTOR VEHICLE COMPULSARY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE (CTP)

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0990

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

SSROC have been calling tenders for Compulsory Third Party Insurance (CTP) on behalf of member Councils since 1998. Sutherland Shire Council has hosted the most recent tender for CTP insurance.

 

The tender process required the establishment of a regional tender specification, the appointment of a regional tender panel and acceptance of the results by all participating Councils.

 

A full analysis of tenders received is detailed in the attached report compiled by the SSROC representatives. This regional tender has been successful in reducing the cost of CTP insurance from the rates charged by Councils current insurer.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tender for Motor Vehicle Compulsory Third Party Insurance (CTP) was first advertised on 13 May 2003 and tenders were received from Jardine Lloyd Thompson and QBE Insurance (Australian) Limited.

 

The SSROC tender panel have recommended that member Councils accept the tender submitted by Jardine Lloyd Thompson for a period of three (3) years.

 

Jardine Lloyd Thompson has been notified of that SSROC have accepted the tender subject to individual Council’s acceptance.

 


CONCLUSION:

 

The tender submitted by Jardine Lloyd Thompson delivers greater savings to Council than those offered by QBE Insurance (Australian) Limited and Councils current insurer Allianz Australia Insurance Limited.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1)         That the tender submitted by Jardine Lloyd Thompson be accepted for a period of three (3) years and that they be notified of Council’s intention to participate in the regional insurance tender.

2)         Council’s current CTP insurer be advised that their services are no longer required.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

SSROC Tender Specification

SSROC Report to Participating Councils

SSROC Letter of Acceptance - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER.   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 44/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

THE SPOT, RANDWICK - STREETSCAPE WORKS

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0707/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 May, 2003, resolved that -

 

“in relation to recently completed works undertaken at The Spot, a report be submitted to the next Council Meeting on the following issues:-

 

(a)        Contacting Energy Australia and request it immediately remove the old power pole and connect the newly installed lamp post;

(b)        Consulting with stakeholders at The Spot on a more appropriate means of mounting the brass plaque supplied by The Spot Business Association;

(c)        Replacing trees/shrubs recently removed by Council at the request of the STA with a more appropriate species for that location;

(d)        Repairing damaged/vandalised garden beds;

(e)        Investigating the illegal stormwater pipe at the south western corner of the roundabout;

(f)        Attaching to the flag pole the banner supplied by The Spot Business Association;

(g)        Constructing a garden bed on the corner of Soudan Street and Perouse Road;

(h)        Allocating funds for the resurfacing of the western and southern footpaths;

(i)         Installing planter boxes on the western and southern footpaths;

(j)        Installing decorative lighting in the fig tree in St Pauls Street; and

(k)        Consulting with the owner/leasee of the strip of land between the footpath and the Australian Posters signs on a program of improvement/beautification.”

 

ISSUES:

 

I wish to advise of the following action taken with respect to each individual part of the above resolution -

 

 

a.         Contacting Energy Australia and request it immediately remove the old power pole and the newly installed lamp post.

At the time of the resolution, Council’s electrician was liaising with Energy Australia to carry out the required works. The works required by this resolution have subsequently been completed.

 

b.         Consulting with stakeholders at The Spot on a more appropriate means of mounting the brass plaque supplied by The Spot Business Association;

            Council’s landscape architects had considered this item during the design process when it was decided that mounting the plaque horizontally would give this plaque better visibility to pedestrians from all directions. The Design Manager has spoken to the President of The Spot Chamber of Commerce and has arranged for Council’s Landscape Designers to meet with Chamber representatives to discuss this matter.

 

c.         Replacing trees/shrubs recently removed by Council at the request of the STA with a more appropriate species for that location.

The tree was removed since it obstructed the JCDecaux bus shelter and caused a problem in accordance with Council’s contract with this company. Following an investigation it was considered that the provision of any tree at this location was not suitable and patching of the area with footpath paving has been programmed for the near future.

 

d.         Repairing damaged/vandalised garden bed.

The maintenance required under the contract for the construction works has been carried out as well as the graffiti being removed and the trees under pruned as  required. It should be noted that the brickwork on the south western corner of this intersection has been damaged by what appears to be a collision by a vehicle. It is not possible to offset this wall any further from the kerb as it would encourage pedestrians to cross in this area.  The repairs will therefore be effected as soon as practical.

 

e.         Investigating the illegal stormwater pipe at the south western corner of the roundabout.

The illegal stormwater pipe was provided by the owner of the private property served by this pipe.  Council’s Planning Department has taken the appropriate action to have the illegally constructed pipe removed.

 

f.          Attaching to the flag pole the banner supplied by The Spot Business Association.

Flags have been installed at this location at appropriate times. The President of the Chamber of Commerce has confirmed that he is still in possession of the Association’s banner. When arrangements are made for the installation of this banner, he will be contacted so that the banner can be supplied and installed.

 

g.         Constructing a garden bed on the corner of Soudan Street and Perouse Road.

            The provision of a garden bed at the location was not part of the original design which was the subject of consultation with the Chamber of Commerce . It has also not included with any changes or part of the changes which were implemented as part of this consultation. There has been no budget allocation for any further works at this location in the current year.

 

 

 

 

h.         Allocating funds for the resurfacing of the western and southern footpath.

            At present, the footpath is functional. There are no trip hazards present and they are no immediate plans to replace this footpath. The footpath will be replaced in future budgets when Townscape funding becomes available.

 

i.          Installing planter boxes on the western and southern footpaths.

            The provision of a garden bed at the location was not part of the original design which was the subject of consultation with the Chamber of Commerce . It has also not included with any changes or part of the changes which were implemented as part of this consultation. There has been no budget allocation for any further works

 

j.          Installing decorative lighting in the fig tree in St Pauls Street

            In November, 2002, David Folger Design provided a quotation for the installation of decorative lighting in the fig tree in Perouse Road at The Spot .This quotation was for the amount of $15,400. Given the high costs to carry out these works, Council considered a report late last year dealing with a number of locations including this one and resolved not to proceed with this project.

 

k.         Consulting with the owner/leasee of the strip of land between the footpath and Australian Posters signs on a program of improvement/beautification.

            This land is owned by Brigidine College and Council officers have recently held pre-development and other meetings with the school in relation to the development of this site. As it appears that the development of this site is imminent any beautification or improvement of this strip of land would not be worthwhile at this time.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the contents of the Director Asset and Infrastructure’s Report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 


  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 45/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED ALCOHOL FREE ZONE - SHORT STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

21 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1285

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

I refer to Council’s Meeting of 24th June 2003, where it was resolved that:

 

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

 

(b)               The public consultation process be undertaken in order to properly establish the Alcohol Free Zone in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act; and

 

(c)                Council write to the Commander at Maroubra Police Station seeking the enforcement of the Alcohol Free Zone in Anzac Parade, between Haig Street and Boyce Road.

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the requirements of section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993, the public consultation process for properly establishing an Alcohol Free Zone has been undertaken, with no objections or representations received by the closing date of 13th August 2003.

 

The Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW advised Council by way of letter on 10th July 2003, that as long as the procedures set out in the Act are followed, they have no objection to the proposal.

 

Prior to establishment, the Act requires that the proposal be re-advertised in the local paper and all parties originally notified be advised that the zone is now to be created. However, it will not begin operation until 7 days after this notification, and until the zone is adequately signposted.

 

The placement of signs will be undertaken in consultation with the Police as they are responsible for enforcement, and are generally located at the perimeter of the zone and at specific trouble spots.

 

In reference to part ‘c’ of the above resolution, a written request was forwarded to Maroubra Police on 24th June 2003, requesting enforcement of the Maroubra Junction Alcohol Free Zone.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All steps required by the Local Government Act in order to properly establish the Short Street Alcohol Free Zone have been followed, and with no objections received to the proposal, and with the support of Council and the Police, it is proposed that the zone now be created.

 

To save confusion over expiration dates, it is proposed that this zone be created to run concurrently with the other 6 zones throughout the City, that is, an expiration date of 15th October 2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Short Street Alcohol Free Zone be established and signposted, with an expiration date of 15th October 2005.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

DAVID MEREDITH

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 46/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANZAC PARADE ROAD CLOSURE ADJACENT TO PRINCE HENRY HOSPITAL - CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS

 

 

DATE:

12 August, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0031/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on Tuesday, 10th December, 2002, Council resolved:

 

“That Council make application to close and sell the sections of Anzac Parade road verge shown on the diagrams (note that the road verge will be maintained at a width of 4m), subject to:

 

(a)        All survey and legal costs to be borne by the Landcom;

 

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

 

(c)        Landcom ensuring that none of the public utility authorities including AGL, Energy Australia, Telstra, etc, have any objection to the closure and sale of the subject lane; and

 

(d)        Landcom advising the Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment of the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to Council making application for this closure.”

 

A number of objections were received by the Department of Lands, these being from Sydney Buses, Energy Australia, Agility (AGL) and the La Perouse Precinct Committee.  Landcom have negotiated with the service authorities involved, which has resulted in the objections from Sydney Buses, Energy Australia and Agility (AGL) being lifted.

 

The only remaining objection to the road closure is the one lodged by the La Perouse Precinct Committee.  This Committee’s issues were presented under five (5) headings and are set out in this report under these headings. The Committee’s concerns are summarised under each heading and a response from Council’s officers follows each summary in italics.

 

OBJECTIONS AND OFFICER COMMENTS:

 

Not in the Public Interest

 

Objections

The Public interest alluded to in the submission is based on what is to be built on the site and its surrounds.  Numerous public meetings were held prior to the Masterplan and the road closure was not mentioned at any time. The community was assured by the Local Member (The Premier) that open space would be preserved. There is an assertion that this closure was not an “afterthought” by Council but a means of minimising controversy of the Masterplan and doing it “on the quiet” as a later amendment to the Masterplan. 

 

Officer Comments

The area of land being considered is not” Open space” but an extremely wide nature strip that is classified public road. The matter was brought up at officer level during road width negotiations between Landcom and Council’s officers late last year.

 

There was no intention to deceive the community and the road closure has been advertised as required by the relevant legislation. Any telephone enquiries have been dealt with in an honest and open manner and there has been no attempt by Council officers to push for this road closure “on the quiet”.

 

Inadequate Consultation/Advertising

 

Objections

There was a lack of consultation caused by the road closure being referred to in DA listings as a road closure at 1480 Anzac Parade and not as PHH Development site as

the site has commonly been referred to. The Precinct Committee conducted a survey and could find none who know of this proposed sale of the roadway.

 

Anzac Parade is not just a road but a six lane parade with central open space linking Centennial Park to Botany Boy National Park. Narrowing of the nature strip and roadway would affect the appearance and character of Anzac Parade generally and at the locality.

 

The Masterplan was passed without mention of the possible incorporation of the Anzac Parade roadway. Council officers countered community objections to the “overbearing and out of character development” by referred to the “wide” nature strip and therefore by Council’s own resoucing this trip should be left as “open space.”

 

The whole of Anzac Parade is a monument in remembrance of the solders of this country. The community holds it sacred and it shouldn’t be sold and the RSL should be canvassed on the issue.

 

Officers comments

There is no requirement for Council under the legislation to advertise this road closure as Council is not the determining authority. When Council applies for such closures, the matter is then advertised by the Department of Lands (the determining authority) which invites public comment. The fact that this item appeared as indicated by this objection in the DA listings in the local press is further proof that there was no intention to hoodwink the general community.

 

The comments about preserving the “character of Anzac Parade generally” are regarded as interesting. While there are sections of Anzac Parade which have a wider nature strip e.g. just north of this site and the western side of Anzac Parade between its intersection with Bunnerong Road and the La Perouse Loop Road, the vast majority of Anzac Parade has a nature strip against the boundaries of 3.6m in width. At this location it is proposed to maintain a 4 metre wide nature strip.

 

In addition to the 4 metre wide nature strip, which will be vegetated to maintain a green link along Anzac Parade, current design work is indicating that the front fence to properties will be set back a further 3 metres, to allow for a landscaped zone on private property, planted with shrubs and trees.

 

The master plan adopted for the site in May 2003 reflects allotments which incorporate the additional land, the proposed sale of which was reported to Council in December 2002. Further consultation with  State Transit Authority, following on from the master plan consultation, has determined operational needs of the STA, final details of which will be shown in the relevant development application.  However it should be noted that the proposed sale of land has not been an impediment to the satisfactory resolution of the STA's needs.

 

In terms of achieving good urban design along Anzac Parade the sale of the land is supported by Council's Planning staff, Council's independent Design Review Panel and Planning NSW.

 

It should also be noted that the Precinct Committee has on numerous occasions contacted Council officers regarding this matter and has received advice together with reports and available plans.

 

In reference to comments in respect of canvassing the RSL, it should be noted that the matter has been advertised as required by the appropriate legislation. Should any member of the community or the RSL have wished to comment on the proposal they have had adequate opportunities to do so.

 

Inadequate Information

 

Objection

The submission states that in order to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of the proposal the Precinct Committee needs to know the proposed provision of naturestrips, road lanes, median strips, roundabout widths, promised cycleways etc.  Reference is also made of the need to maintain the character of the median in Anzac Parade as a refuge for the elderly, provision for cyclists, joggers and the maintenance of the village green facility.

 

The submission also comments that a sketch has not been made available to the committee and that the final arrangements have not yet been determined.

 

Officer Comments

There has been considerable intervention between all of the relevant stakeholders including State Transit, RTA, Council Officers, the Service Authorities and Landcom to determine the requirements for the trafficable carriageways to properly service this development and the adjoining communities.

 

The report to Council clearly identified that Council would require a minimum 4m wide nature strip from the face of kerb to the boundary when all of the traffic requirements have been satisfied.  It should be noted however that the majority of the carriageway widths of Anzac Parade at this location are quite generous and can easily accommodate this development.  The only alterations will occur at the entrances to the site where roundabouts and/or other traffic facilities are required and the minimum 4 metre wide nature strip will apply at these locations as well as the other unaltered locations along the Anzac Parade frontage of this development.

 

Attached is a copy of the plan, which shows the proposed road closure application and this has been submitted to the Department of Lands with the road closure application.

 

Flawed Justification by Council

 

Objection

The roadway being sold is heavily used by the RTA and the public and because of the additional development at this location and in the vicinity it is required to satisfy the future needs of the community - Council in satisfying its needs and that of the developer is acting contrary to the interests of its residents is abrogating its statutory duty and is acting in a corrupt manner.

 

Officer Comments

Any suggestions that the remaining width of Anzac Parade is not sufficient to satisfy the current and future needs of the residents of this area is not considered warranted as the traffic carrying capacity of the south bound carriageway, in particular, is in excess to Anzac Parade’s capacity between Kingsford and Maroubra Junction which is a much busier stretch of road and still does not suffer capacity problems.

 

Landcom Response

 

Landcom have provided the following letter dated 13th August 2003 as their response to the objections.

 

“Further to my letter dated 8 August 2003, this letter is in response to the four objections received by the Department of Lands from STA/Sydney Buses, Energy Australia, Agility and the La Perouse Precinct Committee (LCP) concerning the closing of part of Anzac Parade.

 

Over the past few months, negotiations have been held with STA/Sydney Buses, Energy Australia and Agility.  These three organizations have now lifted their objections in writing (copies attached).

 

In response to the objection by the La Perouse Precinct Committee (LCP), I address only those concerns that relate to the development, the masterplan and Landcom:

 

·          The masterplan for the Prince Henry site was approved by Randwick City Council (RCC) in November 2001, subject to requested amendments.  Those amendments have been made and were included in the Amended Masterplan, which was adopted by Randwick City Council in May 2003.  At this time the Anzac Parade strip was incorporated into the developable area.

·          While the proposed part road closure does involve removal of the bus layover currently used by STA, the layover is being relocated nearby, and the STA has lifted their objection.

·          Through traffic lanes/shared bicycle way along Anzac Parade will be unaffected by the part closure.

·          Under the Amended Masterplan 747 dwellings are proposed, as well as aged care, commercial, retail and community uses.  This is less than that quoted by the LPC.

·          Closing the part of Anzac Parade will bring the nature strip back to a more constant width along the Prince Henry Anzac parade frontage.

 

Given the above, I now request that the road closure be progressed.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As can be drawn from the comments in the body of the report, the objections put forward by the La Perouse Precinct Committee are not considered to provide sufficient reason to not proceed with this road closure.  It is therefore considered that the Lands Department should be sent a copy of this report and a resolution by Council stating that it has considered the Precinct Committee’s objections and has resolved to proceed with the closure.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Department of Lands be advised that

 

a)         Council has considered the objections put forward by the La Perouse Precinct Committee and considers that they do not provide sufficient reason to not proceed with the road closure for the reasons detailed in the body of this report.

b)         Council requests that the application for the subject road closure proceed as soon as possible.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from La Perouse Precinct Committee.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - DESIGN

 




 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 20/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER - LEGISLATIVE REFORM - AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT & LOCAL COURTS ACT

 

 

DATE:

5 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1238 xr 98/S/4843

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Following a recent review by staff of the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, in respect to the Acts and Regulations under which delegations are effective, it has been determined that the Policy needs some minor updating due to changes in legislation and specifically the Criminal Procedure Act.

 

ISSUES:

 

A Local Courts’ legislative reform package was developed after a lengthy period of consultative and legislative review.  The reform package removed much of the technical and historical formalities which were required under the now replaced Justices Act 1902.

 

Accordingly, elements of some Acts of Parliament have been superseded by other Acts and new Acts of Parliament have been proclaimed.

 

The current legislation provides new powers to Police Officers and Public Officers (this term is defined under the Criminal Procedure Act as Council employees) to perform administrative functions of issuing initiating process and subpoenas without first seeking signatures and seals from the Local Court.  It also consolidates procedures by allowing criminal prosecutions to commence by way of a new Court Attendance Notice, replacing informations, summonses and charge sheets.  All general non-criminal matters will commence by way of a standard and uniform Application Notice.  Further, the legislation creates a platform upon which the Local Court will, in the future, be able to avail itself of new technologies such as electronic lodgement of documents and more efficient court management practices.

 

On this basis it is necessary for three (3) of Council’s current delegations to be updated to insert new or affected Acts of Parliament and new terminology associated with those Acts.

 

Detailed hereafter are the relevant reference numbers in Policy No. 2.01.04 and the alterations required:

 

(a)        RA001 – Acts & Regulations

(i)         Insert new “(a) (a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986”

(ii)        Insert new “(b)(b) Home Building Act 1989”

(iii)       Insert new “(c) (c) Registered Clubs Act 1976” 

 

(b)        RL001 – Legal Proceedings – Institution of

(i)         Insert new wording in (i) as follows:

·          After the words “To authorise” insert the words

“the issue of Court attendance notices, application notices, subpoenas,”

 

·          After the words “such action to be taken by Council,” insert the words “or its employees and to issue such court attendance notices, application notices, subpoenas or”

 

(ii)        Insert new wording in (iii) as follows:

·          After the words “designated or proper officer” insert the words “or public officer.”

 

(c)        RL002 – Legal Proceedings – Instruction

(i)         Insert new wording in (i) as follows:

·          After the words “General Manager or Director,” insert the words “issue court attendance notice, application notice, subpoenas,”

·          After the words “such action to be taken by Council” insert the words “or its employees.”

 

(d)        RL021 – Liquor Act

(i)         Insert new wording as follows:

·          After the words in the heading “Liquor Act”, insert the words “and Registered Clubs Act.”

·          After the words “in the Liquor Act”, insert the words “and Registered Clubs Act.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to the phasing out and/or introduction of new legislation by the NSW Government, it is necessary for the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, Delegation of Authority – General Manager and staff, to be updated.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That the alterations to the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04, Delegations of Authority, as detailed in the Director Governance, Management and Information Services Report No. 20/2003 be adopted;

 

b)         That pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, and subject to compliance with all Council policies and lawful directions made by Council or any public authority, Council hereby delegates to the General Manager authority to exercise or perform on behalf of Council all the revised powers, authorities, duties and functions as detailed in the Director’s Report  20/2003; and

 

c)         That the Policy Register be updated.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 61/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Down Zoning of Property in Cowper Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

14 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1093

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On Tuesday 28th May 2002, Council resolved to undertake a survey of the owners of the land within the section of Cowper Street bounded by Church Street and Prince Street, as to the question of their properties being down zoned from the current 2C Residential zoning. This report outlines the survey process, assesses the responses and recommends that Council not proceed with any draft Local Environmental Plan to rezone the relevant sites.

 

Council Resolution

 

Council, at its meeting of 28 May 2002 resolved:

‘That the owners of the remaining detached and semi-detached dwellings on the section of Cowper Street, bounded by Church and Prince Streets be surveyed as to the question of their properties being down zoned.’

 

The purpose of Council’s resolution was to survey the owners of the remaining detached and semi-detached dwellings and determine their attitude to a downzoning of their properties to Residential 2A, however all owners (including the owners of residential units) within the designated survey area have been surveyed to allow wider consideration of local opinion with regard to this issue. Survey results are presented for the owners of detached/semi-detached dwellings, the owners of multi-unit dwellings and overall results for the owners of all properties within the designated survey area.  The focus of the survey is the owners of the remaining detached and semi-detached dwellings as stipulated by the Council resolution.

 

Background/Survey Process

                        

The survey was prepared and distributed on the 26 March 2003, with a letter attached detailing the current planning controls applicable to the subject properties under the Residential 2C zoning, planning controls that would be imposed in the event of a down zoning to Residential 2A zoning, possible impacts of a change in zoning to local residents and their properties and what the process for a rezoning would entail. The survey gave landowners the two options, retain the current zoning (Residential 2C) or be down zoned to Residential 2A. The chance to provide additional comments was also provided.

 

The letters and surveys were sent out to fifty-six (56) local landowners owning fifty-eight (58) properties on the 26 March 2003, with the closing date for responses Monday 28 April 2003. Twenty-four (24) responses were received.  

 

After the closing date had expired, follow up calls where made to those owners who hadn’t responded to check they had received the survey and seek their reply, both by sending in the survey or answering the survey over the phone. A further six (6) responses were received.

 

Analysis of Survey

 

A total of fifty-eight (58) letters where sent out to all fifty-six (56) property owners within the area. This included thirty-one (31) unit owners and twenty-five (25) dwelling houses or dual occupancies owners.  Twenty-eight owners (28) have responded, an overall response rate of 50%. The response rate for the dwelling houses/dual occupancies was 57.14%.

 

Of the 28 respondents within the survey area, twelve (12) are the owners of units and sixteen (16) are owners of single dwellings or dual occupancies. The responses in summary are outlined below.

 

 

Against the proposed rezoning

For the proposed rezoning

Total no. of owners

·    Owners of Units

1

11

31

·    Owners of Dwellings and Dual Occupancies

10

6

25

·   Owners (Total)

11

17

56

 

The focus of the survey was whether the owners of detached and semi-detached dwellings would like to see their properties downzoned. 62.5% of the owners of detached and semi-detached dwellings which responded to the survey indicated that they wished to retain the current Residential 2C zoning.

 

Two (2) additional respondents from outside the area of the survey were received. These were in favour of retaining the existing zoning (no addresses provided). 

 

Of the 28 non-respondents within the survey area, seventeen (17) are not contactable by phone due to unlisted numbers. Follow up calls and messages to the eleven (11) other non-respondents resulted in two (2) owners stating that they were not interested in being involved in the survey.

 

ISSUES:

 

Survey Results

 

The majority of owners who favour rezoning the subject properties to Residential 2A are those that live in existing multi-unit housing. These are residents who already own dwellings that are the product of the current zoning and similar previous zonings. The overwhelming majority of responses that object to the proposed rezoning are those from owners of single dwellings or dual occupancies. Those who have provided additional comment are generally concerned that a change of zoning could limit their development potential and/or the value of their property. The benefits of a change in zoning to those who already reside in multi-unit buildings is that there will be no increase in traffic on local streets and no additional demand for onstreet carparking spaces from residents of new multi-unit developments. 

 

Planning Context

 

The area subject to this survey is located in close proximity to a whole range of facilities and services such as local parks and beaches, Sydney CBD, the University of New South Wales and the Prince of Wales Hospital. The area is also well located to take advantage of existing public transport facilities. The Residential 2C zoning of the area that dates back to Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance has been the foundation of the strategic planning philosophy for 30 – 40 years. 

 

The proposed downzoning of properties within the survey area would be inconsistent with the policies of the State Government. The objectives of State Government Metropolitan policy documents such as ‘Shaping Our Cities’ and Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport. This policy envisages a compact city, encouraging housing in inner Sydney, which is located on highly accessible public transport routes, located close to employment centres and facilities such as universities and hospitals. Randwick City Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) has identified areas suitable to multi-unit housing in accessible and suitable locations. Cowper Street is highly accessible, with close proximity to Randwick Junction and bus routes to and from the local area.

 

In the event that Council decides to pursue a rezoning of the subject properties, an amendment to Randwick Council’s LEP will be required. Any decision needs to be consistent with all relevant State Government policies. In case of any inconsistencies planning reasons need to be provided to explain and justify those inconsistencies. The Minister for Planning would make the final decision on whether or not to make the amending LEP to allow the rezoning to take place.

 

Council is currently addressing issues regarding the impact of higher density residential development in ways other than downzoning land. Planning controls contained in Council’s LEP stipulate that the floor space ratio (FSR) for development in the Residential 2C zone is 0.9:1 and reduces to 0.65:1 where the site area is less than 700 square metres. This floor space ratio of 0.65:1 is comparable to FSR’s in Council’s Residential 2B zone. This will mean that within the designated survey area only larger and/or consolidated blocks will have the potential for substantial multi-unit residential development. Downzoning of the twenty-five (25) detached and semi-detached dwellings out of the fifty-six (56) properties would be a piecemeal exercise and it would be unlikely the proposal would be supported.

 

Council has recently set up a ‘Design Review Panel’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, which reviews and provide comment on all residential development applications lodged with Council that have three or more storeys and four or more units. This panel provides urban design advice to Council on taking into account, among other aspects, its context, scale, density and design compared to neighbouring dwellings and the existing streetscape. Through the establishment of the panel and taking on board comment provided by it, Council aims to ensure that development will be in keeping with the existing and desired future character of the local area.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There is increasing recognition at State and Local Government levels of the need for better urban design of new residential multi-unit housing. Council’s LEP 1998 and DCP’s contain provisions to promote good outcomes. The recent establishment of an expert Design Review Panel has been another initiative to ensure high quality design outcomes in new development, to enhance and compliment the existing streetscape and design features of neighbouring buildings.

 

In response to Council’s resolution 62.5% of owners of detached and semi-detached dwellings responded stating that their property should remain under the current Residential 2C zoning.

 

Given the outcome of the survey it is recommended that no further action regarding the downzoning of this area to be undertaken.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council: -

 

a)         Note the outcomes of the survey, and

b)         Agree not to pursue any downzoning of the section of Cowper Street, bounded by Church and Prince Streets.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Copy of letter and survey sent to local residents regarding the proposed downzoning of property in Cowper Street, Randwick.

2. Map of the area and properties surveyed.

3. Comments from respondents of the survey. 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVE ROSELAND

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

(98/S/1093)

 

26 March 2003

 

 

PERSON

Property Owner

Address in the area

 

Dear PERSON

 

Important Survey from Randwick City Council

Your property in Cowper Street, Randwick is currently zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998. The residential purposes permitted in this zone have applied to your property for over 30 years. 

 

Randwick City Council, in response to concerns over the redevelopment potential of all remaining houses along a section of Cowper Street, between Church and Prince Streets, is investigating the possible “down-zoning” of these properties from Residential 2C to Residential 2A. This change in zoning would prevent any further replacement of existing detached and semi-detached dwelling houses by residential flat buildings. 

 

As a rezoning of your property would impact on what Council will permit you to do with your property in the future, Council resolved to ask you, as the property owner, whether you agree or disagree with any down-zoning of your property.

 

To assist you in responding to Council, the following information is provided:

 

What will a change in zoning mean to me?

·     A down-zoning from Residential 2C to Residential 2A (i.e. a change from a higher to a lower density residential zone) will mean that no more town houses or residential flat buildings will be developed along this section of Cowper Street between Church and Prince Streets.

·     It will affect what you are allowed to build on your land. 

·     It will affect what your neighbours are allowed to build on their land, unless neighbouring properties have already been developed into residential flat buildings.

·     It will not mean that neighbouring residential flat buildings must be changed back to houses. 

·     It will not change the amount you pay to Council in rates.

·     It may affect the sale value of your property.

What am I currently allowed to build under the Residential 2C Zoning?

·     The current 2C zone permits a variety of housing types including medium density housing forms such as multi-unit housing (two or more dwellings, whether attached or not, including townhouses and residential flat buildings).

·     If your property is a minimum of 700 sq metres in size, you are currently able to develop to a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1.

·     If your property is less than 700 sq metres in size, you are currently able to develop to a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1.

·     The maximum permissible height for development is 12 metres.

 

What would I be allowed to build under the Residential 2A Zoning?

·     The Residential 2A zone permits low density housing, including dwelling houses, and dual occupancies.

·     Depending on the size of your property, the maximum FSR varies between 0.5:1 and 0.65:1.

·     The general height limit for development is 7 metres (which is a wall rather than roof height).

·     The minimum site area for required subdivision for a dual occupancy is 900 sq metres.

·     The minimum site area required for construction of a dual occupancy, without subdivision, is 450 sq metres.

 

How would the value of my property be affected?

The property market considers that a property containing a house or a semi, in an area zoned for multi-unit housing, has 'development potential'. The value of a property with 'development potential' is usually different from the value of a property without it.

Before completing the survey, we recommend that you consult a real estate agent or a property valuer for professional advice about the value of your property under the current zoning, and its likely value under a Residential 2A zoning. 

 

What is the process for a rezoning?

When we have received your response to this survey, Council officers will prepare a report to Council, in order for Council to decide whether or not to proceed with any rezoning of yours and other affected properties. This would require an amendment to Randwick LEP 1998. An LEP amendment would take a minimum of 9-12 months to prepare, including a public exhibition period and reporting back to Council. If endorsed, Council would then report to the Minister for Planning, addressing any requirements of State planning policies. The Minister would then make the final decision on whether or not to make the amending LEP to change the zoning.

 

How can I provide my comments to Council?

Please fill in the short survey on the next page and post or fax it to Council by Monday 28 April 2003.

 

If you would like more information before responding or have any queries, please do not hesitate to call Stephen Roseland, in Council’s Strategic Planning team on 9399 0898.

 

Yours faithfully

Gordon Messiter

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


Attachement 2:

 

Map showing the designated survey area and location of existing mulit-unit developments

 

·    Existing Multi-Unit Developments

 


Attachment 2:

 

Map showing the designated survey area and location of properties in favour of the proposed rezoning of Cowper Street between Church and Prince Streets

 

·    Properties in favour of the proposed rezoning of Cowper Street between Church and Prince Streets

 


Attachment 2:

 

Map showing the designated survey area and location of properties opposed to the proposed rezoning of Cowper Street between Church and Prince Streets

 

·    Properties opposed to the proposed rezoning of Cowper Street between Church and Prince Streets

 

 


Attachment 3:

 

General comments from those who provided additional comments in their survey form

 

 

Perspective

Address

Comment

In favour of proposed downzoning

* 39 Cowper St

I wish to record my disgust with this ‘so-called’ survey – for its lack of survey methodology and total bias.  Everything points out the negative for the home owner, eg may affect sale value of property you failed to balance your points eg. Contrary to your implied ‘loss of property value, it may increase it when homebuyers know they will not be driven demented by developers!  Many residents will accept your negative implication will not bother to check with a real estate agent.  Also you have chosen to use technical talk where again, the average homeowner may have no idea about FSR’s and how to calculate them.  You do not explain that there is a 2B operion, which may have been prefereable for htose who are unattracted to either 2A or 2C.  Please consider my comments to be a complaint, which I will be forwarding with a copy of your ‘survey’ to the Dept. of Local Government and the Ombudsman if necessary.  Your ‘survey’ has the potential to create a lot of heartache on our community and it is totally due to the unprofessional way in which you have carried out.’

 

* 38 Cowper St

‘Survey’s accompanying letter reinforces ratepayers feelings of Council Officers bias in these matters.’

 

* 31 Cowper St

‘To conduct this survey after approving the 42-48 Cowper St development is an insult.  It is also a cruel farce when it will now be impossible to get the numbers to make a rezoning of Cowper St possible.’

 

* 29 Cowper St

‘I have occupied this property for 60 years and have no desire to change.’

 

* 14/30 Cowper St

‘Insufficient of street parking.’

 

* 3/25 Cowper St

‘Cowper Street is over developed.’

 

* 16/30 Cowper St

‘Good idea.’

 

* 15/30 Cowper St

 

‘I am truly impressed with your foresight.’

 

Opposed to the proposed downzoning

 

* 32 Cowper St

 

‘We feel it is unfair to offer rezoning when Council has approved the recent development on the corner of Church and Cowper Street, and indeed the development of 2-4 Frances Street in such an unsympathetic manner to the Heritage listed houses already on the site.  We are put in the position of changing, and thus facing a loss of possible income should we wish to sell – developers being the only interested parties in such a ‘devastated’ streetscape.  Alternatively if we remain as we are Council will perceive it has open slather to develop at will.  We, the residents are caught between ‘a rock and a hard place’ and feel that this is an insulting proposition from Council at this time.’

 

* 11A Cowper St

‘Downzoning restricts small size properties like ours from developing as we are planning, we are stuck between two blocks of flats now.’

 

* 21 Cowper St

‘Cowper Street is predominantly a multi-storey development area with small pockets of existing detached and semi-detached dwellings, consequently, I see no benefit or reason to change the current zoning.’

 

* 43 Cowper St

‘I oppose the down zoning because:

1.   The change is too radical.  Why can’t zone 2B be considered?

2.   Negative impact on my property value.

3.   Area to be rezoned is too small to be effective.  Streets north and south of Cowper St should also be considered.  My property could be surrounded by high-density development which would decrease its value and deny me the opportunity to participate.

4.   Cowper St is a busy road adjoining public transport and given existing high density development, is better suited to zone 2C.

5.   No houses in this area of Cowper St, either individually or collectively, are of historical merit.

6.   It is misleading to consider only my land for minimum lot sizes because it could be consolidated into a larger lot especially under zone 2C.

Please revert with a much larger area for rezoning with the alternative of zone 2B.  The current proposal is a knee-jerk reaction to the recent overdevelopment of 44-46 Cowper St which breached the FSR standards.’

Comments from residents outside the survey area

* N/A

‘Opposed.  Would actively object to any changes to our current zoning.  Please notify us of any Council meetings regarding this matter.’


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 62/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Use of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.1 in Development Applications - Update for fourth quarter of 2002/03 Financial Year

 

 

DATE:

4 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3412

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting of 23 July 2002, Council resolved that statistics be kept on the number of SEPP 1 applications submitted to Council and the number of these applications approved or refused.

 

This report follows on from the Director of Planning and Community Development’s Reports to the Health, Building and Planning Committee meetings held on the 12 November 2002 and 15 January 2003 and the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2003. It provides figures for the fourth quarter of the 2002/03 financial year as well as the overall cumulative figures for the period between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003.

 

SEPP 1 FIGURES:

 

1 April 200330 June 2003

 

In the most recent quarter there were 9 Development Applications determined by Randwick City Council that included SEPP 1 variations to development standards. During this period Council determined 382 Development Applications. Subsequently, the SEPP 1 variations represented 2.35 % of the total applications processed during this period.

 

One SEPP 1 application was refused, 1 was deferred and 7 were approved. 5 related to dual occupancies and 4 related to a multi-unit housing development. 5 approvals have been made under delegated authority and were for development in residential zonings, 2 variations in the 2A zone, 1 variation in the 2B zone and 2 variations in the 2C zone. These variations were minor for the most part. Two of the applications were for attached dual occupancies to replace an existing dwelling on land zoned Residential 2C.  

 

Council approved 2 applications, deferred 1 application and refused 1 application, 2 zoned residential and 2 zoned commercial (1 variation in the 2A zone, 1 variation in the 2C zone, 1 variation in the 3A zone and 1 variation in the 3B zone). The variation in the 2A zone relates to an existing dual occupancy. The SEPP 1 variation proposed in the 2c zone relates to the proposed demolition of three dwellings and the construction of a multi unit housing development and was deferred. The variation in the 3B zone for the Maroubra Bay Hotel redevelopment related to the proposed height and FSR, and was approved on the grounds that the development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality. 

 

The variations related to the following clauses of Randwick LEP 1998:

 

Residential

·    Clause 30(1) – Minimum allotment sizes

·    Clause 30(3) – Minimum allotment sizes

·    Clause 31(2) – Landscaping in 2B/2C zones

·    Clause 32(1) – Floor space ratios (5 variations)

·    Clause 32(2) – Floor space ratios (2 variations)

·    Clause 32(3) – Floor space ratios (2 variations)

·    Clause 33(5) – Building Heights

 

SEPP 1 Figures: Cumulative 1 July 200230 June 2003

 

Between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003 53 approvals were granted for development which included SEPP 1 variations to development standards. This represented 4.16 % of the total 1274 applications determined during this period. This forms a relatively small proportion of the total applications.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

During the fourth quarter of the 2002/03 financial year (Apr-Jun) there were a total of 7 development applications approved, 1 development application deferred and 1 development refused that included a SEPP 1 variation to a development standard.

 

Council continues to monitor the number and extent of SEPP 1 variations and will consider SEPP 1 figures in any future review of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVE ROSERLAND

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 63/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0195/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application 195/02 for the construction of a new mixed use development comprising ground floor retail/commercial (4 units) with five storeys of residential apartments above (67 units) and car parking provided at ground and basement level for Council’s consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 14 August, 2003

2. A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

14 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0195/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a  new mixed use development comprising ground floor retail/commercial (4 units) with five (5) storeys of residential apartments above (67 units) and car parking provided at ground and basement level

PROPERTY:

 214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mandarin Investments P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $12.5m.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site, excavate and construct a single level of basement carparking and a new mixed-use development on the site at 214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street, Kensington. The development will comprise 67 residential units aligned to Darling Street and Anzac Parade with a landscaped podium level to the rear. At street level, the Anzac Parade frontage is occupied by retail/ commercial uses and lobbies to the residential component. A single residential unit and residential entry fronts Darling Street.

 

The applicant has participated in a process of consultation with Council to ensure the proposal is consistent with new Kensington Town Centre DCP, SEPP 65 and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code. The proposal now complies with the built form principles stipulated for the subject site in the Kensington Town Centre DCP. The development is also consistent with the design quality principles outlined in SEPP 65.

 

The applicant has lodged appeal proceedings with the Land and Environment Court on the grounds of deemed refusal (Proceedings No. 10873 of 2003). A callover date has been set for September 3, 2003.

 

This report recommends that Council approve the application for the redevelopment of 214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street Kensington subject to deferred commencement conditions. The deferred commencement relates to several issues including finalising negotiations with the Roads and Traffic Authority regarding a proposed podium to the Anzac Parade footway.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a mixed retail/commercial and residential development comprising 7,438m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA). The ground floor level will comprise 4 retail/commercial tenancies with frontage to Anzac Parade. Levels 1-5 comprise 66 residential units (25 x 1 bed, 34 x 2 bed and 7 x 3 bed). An additional one-bedroom unit is provided at ground level (fronting Darling Street), bringing the total number of units proposed to 67.

 

Vehicular access from the site is proposed from Darling Street. Residential parking for 78 cars is accommodated in the basement level. This semi-basement level (behind the retail tenancies) also accommodates parking for 20 cars including retail provision and residential visitors spaces. A loading bay will provide an additional four spaces on this level at night. Utility and garbage rooms are also proposed to the rear of the commercial tenancies.

 

The landscaped ‘podium’ provides 482m2 of communal open space and landscaping. The podium level is accessed from the residential lobbies at podium level.

 

The design of the proposed buildings is contemporary in style, with the external finishes being a mixture of rendered and painted brickwork and painted concrete with detailing in various forms of aluminium and steel. Various types of glazing are  proposed to balustrading and windows throughout the development.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is an irregular shaped, corner allotment that is bounded by Anzac Parade to the west and Darling Street to the north. The eastern (rear) boundary of the site adjoins a right of carriageway, forming part of the Doncaster Plaza site (240 Anzac Parade). The southern (side) boundary of the site adjoins the Doncaster Plaza development.

 

The subject site is comprised of two parcels, being Lot 1 in DP 621969 (230 Anzac Parade) and Lot 1 in DP 336823 (14 Darling Street). The subject site has an area of 1,349m² and slopes north to south resulting in a change in level of approximately 500mm between northern and southern boundaries, representing a slight gradient across the site. The site has a frontage to Anzac Parade of 66 metres and a frontage to Darling Street of 46 metres.

 

The Anzac Parade parcel is currently occupied by a two-storey funeral home and associated hardstand parking area that occupies the unbuilt portion of the site. 14 Darling Street is currently occupied by a two-storey mechanical workshop. The site is zoned Local Business 3(B).

 

Immediately to the south of the site, is the Doncaster Plaza development site, recently approved for residential development. To the east of the site are 3-4 storey walk-up type residential flat buildings which front Darling Street and Doncaster Avenue. Across Darling Street to the north are older style, two storey commercial buildings with residences above. Across Anzac Parade to the west is the 159-171 Anzac Parade (Lorne Avenue development site) and medium scale residential uses.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses. To the north, the Kensington Town Centre is comprised of a mix of retail, commercial and residential buildings which display a variety of built forms (from single storey houses which have been converted for commercial uses to multi-storey mixed use developments). Behind Anzac Parade to the west are small to medium scale residential areas and residential uses also dominate Doncaster Avenue to the east. The site is in close proximity to recreation and education uses at Randwick Racecourse and the University of NSW.

 

Across Darling Street, to the northeast are a row of heritage-listed single storey dwellings. Some distance to the southwest of the site, across Anzac Parade is the Masonic Temple Hall at 199-201 Anzac Parade. Beyond the Doncaster Plaza site to the south is the Doncaster Hotel. These buildings are both heritage items under schedule 3 of RLEP 98. The site is not located in a heritage conservation area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 12 March 2003, Mandarin Investments P/L submitted a Development Application for the site at 214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street, Kensington. This application sought approval for demolition of the existing structures on the site to construct a retail, commercial and residential development comprised of 503m2 of retail and commercial floor space, a private communal open space of 596m2 (open to the sky) and a podium, providing outdoor seating along the Anzac Parade frontage within Council’s footpath. 68 residential units were proposed (18x1 bed, 44x2 bed and 6x3 bed). A proposal to include angled parking along the southern side of Darling Street was included as part of the original proposal.

 

The application has been the subject of extended discussions with Council Officers. In response to these discussions, a series of amendments have been made to the scheme. These include the following:

 

§   A reduction in the amount of floor area contained within the roof space

§   Removal of the podium to Anzac Parade and reconfiguration of building entries

§   Additional parking provision (via mechanical car stackers) and provision for waste storage

§   A reduction in the number of units and mix of units proposed

§   Change in the roof design to increase solar efficiency and respond to plan changes at upper level

§   Retail, lobby and carpark levels raised in response to revised flood level information

§   Changes to increase façade modulation and reduce bulk as viewed from the street

 

These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

The removal of the podium has been the subject of renewed discussion, given the suitability of this type of structure to achieve flood levels, disabled access and footway dining. An integrated approach to the treatment of the public domain in this block needs to be adopted. The RTA has provided advice that they do not support the podium. Council is currently negotiating with the RTA on the basis that a podium is the preferred solution for the site. The proposed deferred commencement condition will allow for issues raised by he RTA to be resolved.

 

Should concurrence not be granted by the RTA, the recommendation allows for amended details to be submitted to Council removing the podium from the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The site has previously been used as an automotive workshop, vehicle inspection centre and funeral home. These uses have been considered in Council’s assessment of the suitability of the site and appropriate conditions applied where necessary.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee on 26 March 2003 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.        Ross Cresdee, 65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

·         FSR of over 4:1 and 7 storey height represents an uncharacteristic density for the town centre which is comprised predominantly of 2-3 storey buildings.

·         Top floor is additional accommodation level which does not comply with the envelope set by the DCP.

·         The corner element at Darling Street will emphasise the 7 storey nature of the building which is out of character with Darling Street.

·         Restricted open space provision at ground and podium level due to reduction in colonnade width from that prescribed in the DCP.

·         Podium is 2.5m above neighbouring properties and the street to accommodate parking above the flood level. This does not comply with the DCP and results in privacy and noise concerns.

·         Inadequate parking, does not support scheme to provide parking for the development on Darling Street, nor in mechanical car stackers.

·         Amenity concerns due to location of units on heavily trafficked Anzac Parade.

·         Apartment 1 on the ground floor adjacent the café also raises concerns about amenity, noise and privacy.

·         Concern regarding barriers to ground water flow as a result of this and other developments in the vicinity and concern regarding the thoroughness of expert reports submitted with the application which don’t appear to consider the proposals adjacent to the site (Doncaster Plaza) and across Anzac Pde (cnr Lorne Ave).

·         Inadequate deep soil planting for the size of the site (2,000m2).

·         Proposal does not meet the DCP and LEP controls and is not in the public interest.

 

2.        S. Raynes, 9 Darling Street, Kensington

 

·         Requests that Council work towards making details of applications available via the internet as residents are often unable to attend Council during normal office hours.

·         Excessive height and overshadowing.

·         Additional traffic – an extra 100-200 vehicle movements per day is undesirable. Increased noise and air pollution. Road deterioration is also an issue in Darling Street.

·         Impact on existing infrastructure, roads and public transport are already congestion. The proposal will aggravate this congestion.

·         General opposition to “urban consolidation” and high density development of this kind in Kensington.

·         Community consultation process did not adequately involve community in the decision-making process.

 

3.        P & B Mandalidis, 23 Darling Street, Kensington

 

·         Height is out of character with the 3 storey maximum in the rest of the suburb.

·         Precedent of Doncaster Plaza and Lorne Avenue developments has encouraged this high rise development.

·         Overshadowing.

·         Additional traffic to overcrowded and busy Anzac Parade.

·         Additional occupancies and traffic will exacerbate congestion from UNSW and Racecourse an make Kensington an overcrowded and unpleasant suburb.

 

4.        G. Pizzinga, 212 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

·         No concerns raised relating to the development itself

·         However is concerned about construction damage as 212 Anzac Pde is over 70 yrs old.

·         Requests a dilapidation report to ensure no further structural damage occurs to 212 Anzac Pde, paid by applicant and made by a qualified structural engineer.

·         Any damage to the property will require monetary compensation by the contractors.

 

Comment: Condition 46 requires the applicant to provide dilapidation reports of surrounding buildings.

 

5.        M. Whitehead, 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

 

·         Proposal is an overdevelopment of the site

·         7 residential levels not 6 as stipulated in the DCP (4 storeys + 2 setback and invisible from the street)

·         Imposing roof over the 7th floor adds to the dominance of the building

·         Additional traffic

·         Right of way must be retained

·         Privacy and overshadowing to adjoining properties to the east, some units losing all “solar energy”

·         Units to the east will be “enclosed”, due to this development and the adjoining Doncaster Plaza development

·         Inadequate parking, doesn’t comply with DCP.

·         Inadequate areas for stormwater infiltration- unsupportable on ESD grounds in this flood prone area

·         Out of character with the area, too high and imposing

 

6.        Rosemary McKenzie, PO Box 283, Kensington

 

·         Overdevelopment – doesn’t meet controls and standards in DCP and LEP relating to height, scale and setbacks.

·         Environmental consequences of building in Botany Aquifer such as differential settlement, subsidence and cracking of existing buildings.

·         Will hold RCC responsible for any damage to objectors property

 

A petition with 26 signatures raising the following issues was tabled at Council’s Meeting of 29 April, 2003:

 

·         Possible settlement damage

·         Inadequate parking

·         Water table problems

·         Noise and traffic due to construction and increased vehicular movements

·         Shadowing and view obstruction

·         Suitability/ Environmental visual impact

·         Sustainability

 

Comment: Compliance with the building envelope controls within the DCP is covered in detail in section 9 of this report. The proposal has been amended in response to public and internal comment. Conditions of consent have been imposed to ensure that no detrimental settlement or damage to surrounding properties occurs.

 

The amendments to the proposal were also notified in accordance with Council’s policy on 25 June, 2003 and resulted in the following submissions:

 

1.        M. Whitehead, 1 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

 

·         SEPP 1 objection undermines the number of storeys requirement of the DCP, due to the breach of the upper limits of the DCP the application should be rejected.

·         Will set a precedent for breaches of DCP and LEP on other sites not designated as of “special significance”, if approved.

·         Reiterates concerns raised in first submission.

 

2.        D.J Lovibond, S Lovibond, 15 Balfour Road, Kensington

 

·         Overdevelopment, does not comply with controls and objectives of DCP and LEP

·         Will set a negative precedent for future development in the town centre

 

3.        S.Smythe 9/24 Addison Street, Kensington

 

·         8 level block is in clear breach of the contols in the DCP (4 levels set back to 6)

·         FSR should be 1.8:1, not 4:1 for residents’ comfort

·         Inadequate on-site parking

·         Inadequate landscaping

·         No shadow diagrams provided

·         Development will provide poor amenity to residents due to its proximity to an arterial roadway

·         Sound long-term residential planning of Kensington demands refusal of the application

 

4.        R. Cresdee, 65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

·         Excessive density

·         Doesn’t comply with generous building envelopes and exceeds height limit

·         Developers have squeezed extra two levels into the building, by reducing ceiling heights

·         Corner element on Darling Street and Anzac Pde will emphasise 8 storey nature of the building. No discernable setback on Darling Street and weak setback to Anzac Pde.

·         Privacy and noise concerns from podium level over covered parking which doesn’t meet DCP controls

·         Parking standards not complied with, use and maintenance of car stackers is questionable and is not supported. Proposal will result in cars will park on surrounding streets

·         Amenity of units located on Anzac Parade is questionable

·         Questions geotechnical reports submitted with the application – have reports considered current applications on surrounding sites, groundwater disturbance can result in damage to roads, buildings and infrastructure

·         Inadequate landscaping

·         Proposal does not meet DCP and LEP controls and is not in the public interest

 

5.        M. Whitehead, 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

 

·         Site is not a key or landmark site in Kensington

·         Development should be 4-5 levels maximum set back to 6, not 7 levels setback to 8 as proposed

·         Proposal does not meet requirements of the DCP

·         Building will be 2 metres higher than the NIDA building and higher than buildings in Kingsford

·         On site parking is deficient and doesn’t meet the objectives and controls of DCP – Parking and Kensington Town Centre DCP

·         Building is not ‘slim’ as dictated by building envelopes and it is not clear how much of the building envelope has been filled

·         Floor area – level 8 still exceeds 40% of level 7. Levels 7 & 8 should not be included in the proposal as sufficient parking cannot be provided

·         Traffic noise from Anzac Pde has not been adequately addressed by the expert reports submitted with the application

·         Site is unsuitable for residential development

·         Poor solar access and natural ventilation

·         Groundwater flows may damage surrounding properties, limited parking opportunities should restrict the quantity of residential development on the site

·         Paved landscaped areas should be minimised and native plant species should be used

·         Colonnades have not been provided as per the DCP

·         Roof is too prominent

·         No overshadowing diagrams of surrounding properties have been provided

·         Applicants need to take into account the flood constraints and DCP controls which restricts opportunities in Kensington. Council should refuse any application which does not meet DCP controls.

 

Eight copies of a proforma letter were received from the following:

 

6.        L & D Mee, 19 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

7.        R. Fryer, 33 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford

8.        J. Newell, 43 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

9.        E.G. Newell, 43 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

10.      K. Newell, 45 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford

11.      M,V,G Hage, 10 Balfour Road, Kensington

12.      A. Caldwell, 3 Elsmere Street, Kensington

13.      M. Butts, 7 Elsmere Street, Kensington

 

The letters raised the following issues:

 

·         Doesn’t comply with DCP and LEP

·         Excessive height

·         Excessive FSR

·         Excessive levels

·         Deficient parking

·         Unacceptable noise levels for future occupants

·         Deficient natural ventilation and solar access to the units

·         Deficient landscaping

·         Failure to include shadow diagrams

·         Failure to include design features indicated by the DCP and LEP

·         Will set a precedent that will undermine LEP and DCP

·         Council should refuse application

 

Comment: As noted above, the issues raised in the submissions have been discussed at length in Section 9 of this report. Amended shadow diagrams were not submitted with the revised plans. The building was reduced by the amendments, and the original diagrams indicated compliance with Council’s controls as such amended shadow diagrams were not required from the applicant.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Building and Construction Issues

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building has made the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

The proposal

Demolition of existing brick buildings and construction of new commercial/ residential complex with basement carparking.

 

BCA Building Classification

§  Class 6 – Retail/Shops

§  Class 2 – Residential units

§  Class 7a – Car park

 

Key Issues

BCA, fire, safety, noise, construction management, disabled access, OH&S, commercial

 

Recommendation

Should approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.

 

Conditions of consent proposed have been included in the recommendation (see Conditions 39-80).

 

6.2       Environmental Health Issues

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building has made the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

The proposal

 

An application for the demolition of two commercial buildings and the erection of a medium rise, mixed use commercial / residential building at 230 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street Kensington has been received.

 

Key Issues

 

Contamination

 

To fully consider the proposal, the following additional information was sought by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, to determine the suitability of the site and possible contamination and remediation.

 

          “A detailed site contamination investigation must be carried out.

 

The investigation is to;

 

·          be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the relevant NSW EPA Guidelines and Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999,

·          be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant.

 

The detailed site contamination investigation must include a statement, which describes whether the site is suitable for the proposed use, or if remediation is necessary to make the site suitable for the proposed use.

 

If remediation is required, then a remedial action plan is to be submitted to Council, listing all feasible remediation options available to remediate the site to make the site suitable for its intended land use”

 

Correspondence subsequently received by Environmental Consulting Services on the 22 May 2003 states that “the site is suitable for high density residential use and meets the NEHF “D” guideline, the report however does not conclude that the site is suitable for standard residential use with accessible soil”.

 

The subject land has been subject to a range of previous commercial and residential uses and it is therefore necessary to verify that the land is suitable for the proposed development, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 55, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999.

 

A condition requiring a site audit statement and site audit report is to be attached.

 

Acoustics

 

The proposed development is subject to the Kensington Town Centre DCP and relevant acoustic criteria detailed part 4.7 of the DCP has been considered. Key acoustic issues include, noise levels with the residential units from traffic, acoustics between other sole occupancy residential and commercial units and noise from plant & equipment. An acoustic report has been provided with the application from Hyder Consulting, Acoustic Services Group.

 

Correspondence by Hyder Consulting, Acoustic Services Group dated the 4 July 2003 states that the KTC DCP in relation to the windows closed condition is achievable and conditions requiring the compliance with the acoustic report and relevant noise criteria is to be included in the consent.

 

Commercial Units:

 

It is requested an appropriate condition be imposed requiring each unit to receive a separate approval for the fit out and use.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions (including deferred conditions) should be included in the development consent:

 

Conditions proposed by the Manger, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 18-38).

 

6.3       Engineering Issues

 

Council’s Manager, Assets and Infrastructure has provided the following comment in relation to the application:

 

An application has been received for construction of a mixed-use commercial/residential development containing 4 street level commercial tenancies and 67 residential units with basement carparking. The DEPCD is advised that the following comments and recommended conditions have been based on the Issue D submission together with those parts of the earlier submissions detailing the raised footpath treatment in Anzac Parade.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

It is anticipated that groundwater will be encountered within the depth of the proposed basement excavation, and that dewatering will be required during construction.

 

To ensure that the proposed method of excavation and dewatering is satisfactory, the following deferred commencement condition has been included in this report:

 

A report detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to this consent becoming operational. The report shall be in general accordance with the recommendations made in the Hydro Geotechnical Report by D. F. Dickson and Associates Pty Ltd dated 10 March 2003, and shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and must include but not limited to:

 

·   The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering

·   The zone of influence of any possible settlement

·   The location of any proposed re-injection points in relation to the property boundaries (where re-injection equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·   Monitoring of fluctuations of the water table during dewatering/construction to be undertaken by consulting engineers to ensure that the conditions of consent and requirements of the DLWC are satisfied.

·   The location of all proposed monitoring equipment in relation to the property boundaries (where monitoring equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·   The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries

·   The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment i.e.; so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential dwelling and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling

·   A statement from suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and Hydrological Engineers, with the concurrence of a Structural Engineer, that there will be no detrimental settlement to adjoining or nearby buildings using the chosen method of excavation/dewatering.

 

The applicant shall obtain a Water License from the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

A dilapidation survey of the surrounding properties shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person prior to the commencement of work.

 

As the proposed basement carpark will intersect the water table, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the tanking & waterproofed has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)         Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be charged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

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

 

Waste Comments

 

The residential garbage demands shall calculated based on the following demands:

·  1 x 240 litre split recycling bin per 2 units

·  1 x 240 litre garbage bin per 2 units.

 

The applicant has submitted a revised waste management plan with the amended development proposal, (see Appendix E). The amended waste management plan reflects the agreed outcomes from discussions held between the applicant and Council’s Waste Management Department and, subject to details of the proposed chute being approved, the DAIS does not object to the proposal on waste management grounds.

 

Civil works Comments

 

The DAIS does not support the proposal for a realigned kerb and blister islands on Darling Street as shown on the original application.

 

The DAIS would not object to a portion of the footpath being elevated along the Anzac Parade site to facilitate the retail premises having a shop frontage at street level, provided that the elevated footpath is setback a minimum of 3.0 metres from the kerb alignment and a 2.5 metres wide section of footpath is left unimpeded for pedestrian use in front of the elevated section, (Note: additional comments regarding the raised footpath in Anzac Parade have been included in the drainage comments).

 

Traffic Comments

 

According to the submitted traffic report by Masson Wilson Twiney dated 4/3/2003, the expected peak flow volume generated by the development is approximately 36 vehicles per hour. Given that the existing development site generates approximately 5 – 6 traffic movements in the peak the net peak flow increase associated with the development is in the order of 30 vehicles movements per hour. The DAIS is of the opinion that the road network surrounding the development site can readily accommodate the increased vehicle movements without significantly decreasing the level of service.

 

Parking Demands

 

Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking states that for commercial / multi-unit housing, the following traffic generating rates apply:

 

Parking Type

Parking Requirements (Council’s DCP)

Provision within the development (applicant)

Residential:

 

105

1 bedroom – 1 / unit

26 x 1 = 26

2 bedroom – 1.2 / unit

34 x 1.2 = 40.8

3 bedroom – 1.5 / unit

7 x 1.5 = 10.5

Visitors – 1 / 4 units

67 x ¼ = 16.75 (12.4*)

Total:

94 (90*)

 

 

Other:

 

Retail/commercial

 - 1 / 40m2

444 x 1/40 = 11.1

 

 

Total:

105 (101*)

105

 

Bicycles – 1 per 3 units, plus 1 visitor per 10 units

67 x 1/3 + 67 x 1/10 = 29

30

Total:

29

30

 

* Note 2: It is considered that the visitor parking can be reduced to 1 / 5 units for the first 50 units, then 1 / 7 units after that. This gives a total of 12 visitor spaces required.

 

Allocation of parking spaces

 

·        Basement 1 Level

 

The applicant proposes 7 commercial spaces and 77 spaces for residents.

 

The DAIS has concerns about the number of spaces that are provided using carstackers, (68 in total). These spaces only have clearance for 1.5 metres and therefore they are not suitable for a number of larger vehicles (such as 4 wheel drive vehicles). The DAIS recommends that at least 7 carstacker units be deleted from the Basement Level and that all of the remaining 77 spaces in the basement be allocated to the residential component of the development (i.e the parking shortfall be allocated to the commercial component, such that only 4 commercial spaces in total are provided). The EPCD Department to condition development consent in relation to this matter.

 

The residential parking spaces on Basement 1 Level shall be separated from the commercial, residential and visitor parking spaces on the Ground Floor Level via a security roller shutter or similar between the two floors.

 

·        Ground Level

 

The applicant proposes 4 tandem spaces for commercial, (Tandem spaces 17/18, 19/20), 12 single spaces for visitors, 4 disabled spaces allocated to residential and a loading bay.

 

Car park layout

 

All carspaces shall conform to the requirements of AS 2890.1 as a minimum.

 

Car stackers

 

Should the DEPCD consider approving the use of carstackers it is recommended that full operational details of the stackers be submitted by the applicant. This information should include (but not be limited to) the following:

 

·        Manufacturer specifications (including dimensions) and instructions for operation

·        Details of manual operation in the event of power/mechanical failure

 

Loading docks

 

The applicant has provided a loading area within the ground floor carpark. The travel path to and from this area has insufficient height clearance for a medium rigid truck.

 

Whilst it is considered that a development of this size should provide loading facilities for at least a medium rigid vehicle (which requires a clearance of 4.5 metres (AS 2890.2)), it is understood that podium height restrictions (as detailed in the Kensington DCP) make it very hard to achieve the required clearances. Thus it is considered to be acceptable for the clearance to be reduced to 3.6 metres. This is adequate for small rigid vehicles such as small removalist vans.

 

It is understood that a clearance of only 3.6 metres will still pose significant problems to the podium level. It is suggested that consideration be given to locating a loading dock near the entrance to the ground floor carpark and raising the clearance over the loading dock (and associated manoeuvring area) only.

 

It is recommended that the applicant be requested to provide amended plans showing adequate clearance and manoeuvring area for at least a small rigid vehicle, (for DEPCD consideration, no condition has been included within this report).

 

Access Driveways

 

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

 

The applicant shall provide a longitudinal section through the driveway access ramp that demonstrates the required high point being achieved together with satisfactory ramp grades.

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

a)       Three (3) Platanus x hybrida (Plane Trees) located within Council’s nature strip, along the Anzac Parade site frontage. These trees are approximately 3-4 metres tall and appear to be in good health. In order to facilitate the redevelopment of the streetscape in line with the Kensington Urban Design Guidelines, permission should be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of seven (7) replacement street trees along the Anzac Parade frontage.

 

b)       Two (2) Hibiscus tiliaceus (Linden Tree) located within Council’s nature strip, along the Darling Street site frontage. These trees are approximately 3 metres tall and appear to be in good health. In order to facilitate the redevelopment of the streetscape in line with the Kensington Urban Design Guidelines, permission should be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of six (6) replacement street trees along the Darling Street frontage.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The subject development site is located in an area that may be subject to flooding due to overland flows in both Darling Street and Anzac Parade

 

The applicant has submitted a flood study that identifies the 1 in 100 year flood levels along both site frontages. The flood study (prepared by Toby Fiander and Associates dated 3 June 2003) uses XP-RAFTS. Council does not have the computer software or the in-house expertise to check the floodstudy, thus an independent hydraulic consultant, (Dr Geoffrey O’Loughlin from WP Brown and Partners Pty Ltd), was engaged to review the flood study.

 

The following comments are based on the flood levels contained in the report by Toby Fiander and Associates and endorsed by Dr Geoffrey O’Loughlin. The model undertaken to date does not consider the effects, (if any), of the proposed raised section of footpath in Anzac Parade, a deferred commencement condition is being included in this report relating to the need for the footpath section to be considered.   

 

·    Floor levels along the Darling Street Frontage

 

According to the recommendations made in the flood report by Toby Fiander and associates, the floor levels along the Darling Street site frontage shall be at least RL of 25.25 (AHD) or suitably waterproofed up to this same level.  The plans submitted comply with this requirement.

 

The main entry/exit driveway has a high point of RL 25.25 and this satisfies the stormwater requirements.

 

·    Floor levels along Anzac Parade Frontage

 

The amended plans show the floor level along the Anzac Parade Site frontage being at RL 25.30 (AHD). Based on the flood levels determined by Toby Fiander and Associates, the AIS Department does not object to the floor levels as proposed.

 

To facilitate disabled access to the commercial tenancies the applicant has shown an elevated footpath with associated access ramps and stairs along the Anzac Parade site frontage. It is noted that the elevated footpath is located within Council’s footpath area. Consideration was given to whether Council would accept such an arrangement at MANEX on Wednesday 30/7/2003, and in further discussions between the DEPCD and the DAIS on Thursday 14/8/2003. It was decided that the following recommendations would be appropriate:

 

It is recommended that Council permit developments to provide elevated pedestrian platforms, stairs and ramps wholly (or partially) within Council’s footpath area to match the floor levels of new retail premises which have been elevated due to flooding concerns, provided that:

 

·          The development is located within a commercial centre subject to flooding and the retail floor levels have been raised as a consequence of Council’s requirements for protection against flooding.

 

·          A minimum 3 metre section of footpath is retained at the existing footpath level immediately behind the kerb, with a minimum 2.5 metres being unimpeded for pedestrian use.

 

·          The elevated platform, access ramps and stairs are designed and constructed to the requirements of Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services.

 

·          A positive covenant and restriction under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, are placed on the title of the property benefiting from the elevated platform, which states that:-

 

o The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened shall clean, maintain, renew and repair the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway;

 

o The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened holds full public liability in relation to any claims sustained as a result of the platform, stairs and ramps;

 

o The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened must keep a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $10,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount, which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

NOTES:

1.         The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway.

 

2.         The policy must name the Council as the owner and the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not change the insurance without first giving the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

 

3.         The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to the Council.

 

o    There shall be no structures erected, goods stored, nor any work carried out in, on or over the public footway other than those approved by Council and the RTA.

 

o    The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened shall pay Council compensation for the use of the public footway.

 

The wording of the 88E instrument shall be to the satisfaction of Council.

 

·          The proposed elevated platform does not exacerbate the existing flooding problems in the area.

 

·          The proposed elevated platform is consistent with the surrounding streetscape. For example, a short section of elevated footpath would not be provided in front of a single redeveloped lot.

 

·          The development benefiting from the elevated platform/split level footpath meets all cost associated with the design and construction of the subject works.

 

The AIS Department does not object to the proposal provided that the applicant complies with the requirements set out above. Conditions addressing the above matters have been included in this report.

 

It is understood however, that concurrence from the RTA is required as Anzac Parade is a classified road. A final response regarding the RTA’s position on the elevated footpath has not yet been received.

 

Should the DEPC Department consider issuing development approval prior to a final response being received from the RTA on this issue, it is recommended that a deferred commencement condition regarding the consent only becoming operational after RTA concurrence is received, should be attached to the approval. It is further noted that the deferred commencement condition should note that all requirements from the RTA are to be incorporated as part of the development approval.

 

It is further recommended that the deferred commencement condition define how the development is to be amended if the RTA does not agree to the elevated footpath being provided along the Anzac Parade site frontage.

 

Consideration of the Probable Maximum Flood Event

 

In the Report by Toby Fiander and Associates it is stated that ‘the lowest habitable floors will be well above even the probable maximum flood event and would be a safe refuge from flooding’. It is likely that the basement would be subject to flooding during PMF (probable maximal flood) event, however (as stated in the report by Toby Fiander and Associates), vertical evacuation routes from the flood prone areas will be available without travel through deeper water being necessary.

 

All doors, walls and windows on the ground floor level along both the Anzac Parade and Darling Street site frontage shall be designed to structurally withstand hydrostatic pressure/stormwater inundation from flood water during the probable maximum flood event as defined in the Floodplain Management Manual (New South Wales Government, January 2001). Structural Engineering certification confirming that this condition has been complied with shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Internal Drainage Comments

 

On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of 1-hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to Council’s underground drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

The applicant shall liaise with the relevant public utility service authorities regarding the proposed elevated section of public footpath to ensure that adequate access is provided to any services located under/near the elevated footpath.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements in relation to the proposed development (including the elevated section of footpath) have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Any substation/s required shall be suitably located with the development site. It is noted that any substation shall be screened from view.

 

Comments from the RTA

 

The development application was referred to the RTA’s Development Impact Unit for comment/assessment and a formal response, (dated 9/7/2003), was received.  The DAIS has subsequently written to the RTA seeking clarification and/or additional comment on a number of the issues raised in the RTA response and to date no further correspondence has been received.

 

The DAIS has considered the original comments from the RTA, and notes that the majority of the recommended conditions are covered by the conditions contained in this report. The comments contained in the RTA report should be considered by the DEPCD.

 

It should be noted that one of the RTA’ recommended conditions relates to ‘No stopping’ signage being provided along the full site frontage in Anzac Parade. Given that there is an existing bus zone in front of the development site it is suggested that compliance with this requirement is not appropriate. Thus the following condition has been included in lieu of the RTA recommendation:

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost for new street signage along the full site frontage in Anzac Parade and Darling Street as required by the RTA and the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

6.4       Disability Coordinator

 

Council’s Disability Coordinator reviewed the original plans and made the following comments:

 

Comments have been obtained from Russell Chudleigh an accredited Access Assessor, Education Officer at AQA and member of Council’s Access Committee, on disability issues in relation to this DA.

 

Several of the accessible ground parking spaces, 5, 6,12 on the ground level of the complex are narrower than 3200mm (AS 2890.1Clause 2.4.5 ( b).

 

One of the visitor car paces on Darling Street should be accessible. A better configeration would be to have 3 residential accessible parking spaces and one visitor.

 

There are no TGSIs indicated, top and bottom of ramps and stairways. As per amendment 10 of the BCA, Section D, specification D3.6.

 

Randwick City Council’s DCP for Multi Unit Housing specifies a number of adaptable apartments should be  provided , 5%.  This is unclear in the SEE report from the applicant.

 

The amended plans and additional details from the applicant’s access consultant were also forwarded to Council’s Disability Coordinator for comment. Council’s Disability Coordinator advised that the access consultant’s report satisfies previous concerns relating to access.

 

6.5       RCC Interim Design Review Panel

 

The proposal was considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 2 April, 2003. The Panel made the following comments:

 

Item 4.             Consideration of Development Application No. 03/00195/GG, Simplicity Funerals Site - 214-238 Anzac Parade & 14 Darling Street, Kensington.

 

1.         Context

 

Natural and built features, current character, desired future character.

 

Does the Proposal;

 

-           respond to the existing or desired future character of the area

-           make a positive contribution to the existing or desired future character of the area

 

The proposal is consistent with the future desired character of the area in that it strongly modifies the street edge, however it is considered that it is very bulky and should be strongly modelled.

 

It should be noted that the proposed FSR is approximately 3.9:1 which is very high for a building of 8 storeys.

 

This issue is discussed in 2, 3  &4 below, as it has a number of other consequences.

 

The podium / terrace treatment of the footpaths is not acceptable as it ‘privatises’ half the footpath width.  The design of the frontage at street level should be consistent with the treatment of the adjacent Doncaster redevelopment proposal and not create a precedent for later proposals in the area.

 

It is clear that a consistent approach to the flooding problem needs to be established by Council.

 

The rear lane access issue should be resolved before consents are granted for this and the Doncaster sites.

 

2.         Scale

 

Massing, Height.

 

Is the proposal:

 

-           of an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height, that suits the streets and the surrounding buildings

-           or, in precincts undergoing transition, is the scale consistent with the stated desired future character.

 

It is considered that the bulk of the building should be relieved by greater modelling within the façade and a clear definition between its parts at roof level.

 

Roof treatment is unresolved and the design should be reconsidered from level 5 up to more strongly differentiate the main divisions within the Anzac Pde façade.

 

3.         Built Form

 

Building alignment, proportions, type, modulation, streetscape.

 

Does the proposal:

 

-           define the public domain

-           contribute to the character of streetscapes and parks including their views and vistas

-           provide internal amenity and outlook

 

See above comments.

 

4.         Density

 

Floor space yields, sustainability, suitability.

 

Is the proposal;

 

-           appropriate for the site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents)

-           or, in precincts undergoing transition, is the density consistent with the stated desired future character.

 

It is considered that the proposal contains too much floor space and that the resultant bulk of the street façade would be out of scale with development in its vicinity and the likely scale of future development.

 

It is also considered that this ‘overdevelopment’ is producing the unsatisfactory internal conditions that do not meet the criteria set out in SEPP 65 and are discussed below.

 

5.         Resource, Energy, Water Efficiency

 

Materials, future re-use of buildings, layouts, solar design, services, soil zones, water reuse.

 

Does the proposal provide:

 

-           passive solar design

-           efficient active systems

-           retention of existing structures

-           adaptability and reuse of buildings

-           soil zones for vegetation

-           reuse of water

-           quality and quantity of stormwater discharge

 

The internal location of all bathrooms and kitchens would mean that they must always be artificially ventilated and lit.  Is this energy efficient?

 

The natural ventilation that is proposed is through bedrooms with frontage to a very noisy road.  Do we think that solutions proposed will work?

 

Corner balconies should be more protected or enclosed, possibly with openable systems.

 

The roof forms proposed would create unnecessarily difficult climate control conditions and would appear to not be orientated to the best view.

 

The deep soil planting area proposed is inadequate.

 

Problems with western sun heat loads – reduce exposure or provide Environmental report on comfort levels.

 

6.         Landscape

 

Natural and cultural features, water and soil management, micro-climate.

 

Does the proposal:

 

-           integrate landscape design with the built form

-           use landscape effectively in contributing to the existing or desired future character

-           provide adequate landscaping in communal, private and public open spaces

 

No comments at this stage.

 

7.         Amenity

 

Layouts, sun, ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, outlook, access indoor/outdoor/

 

Does the proposal provide;

 

-           appropriate room dimensions and shapes            - access to sunlight

-           natural ventilation                                                 - visual and acoustic privacy

-           adequate provision for storage                         - relationship of indoor/outdoor space

-           efficient layouts                                                 - garbage disposal facilities

-           outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility

 

As a consequence of the attempt to fit too much on the site, internal planning is poor; in particular;

 

-           the cranked corridor on level 3 and very long corridor on level 5

-           narrow balconies on levels 2, 3 & 4

-           the mean width of apartments generally

-           the poor access to light that would be experienced in apartments 2 – 9 at podium and first floor levels.  The proposed colonnade is far too deep and the design of the lower floors, ground, podium and first floor should be reconsidered.

 

Street access should be provided to the ground floor apartment on Darling Street.

 

8.         Safety & Security

 

Overlooking, visibility, public domain, access points, public/private.

 

Does the proposal provide;

 

-           overlooking of public and communal spaces

-           maximum activity on streets, avoiding dark and non-visible areas

-           internal privacy

-           clear, safe access points

-           lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities

-           a clear definition between public and private spaces.

 

The corridor on level 3 would feel unsafe.  Entry lobbies are very mean.

 

9.         Social Dimensions

 

Social mix, affordability, access to facilities.

 

Does the proposal provide;

 

-           a mix of accommodation types

-           adequate common facilities

-           usable common space

-           quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses.

 

No comment at this stage.

 

10.       Aesthetics

 

Composition of building elements, textures, materials, colours, in context.

 

Does the proposal;

 

-           provide composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours that fit with context

-           reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development.

     

Could benefit from more design / urban design input.

 

The Panel would like to see amended plans addressing these issues.

 

In response to the Panel’s concerns the applicant lodged sketch plans and a written document which were considered by the Panel at its meeting on May 5, 2003. The following comments were made:

 

Item 2.             Consideration of Development Application No. 03/00195/GG, Simplicity Funerals Site - 214-238 Anzac Parade & 14 Darling Street, Kensington.

 

1.         Context.

 

The Panel was concerned about privatisation of footpath space in the previous proposal and reiterates its opinion that a generous single level footpath is the preferred solution.

 

Hence the ground floor treatment to Anzac Parade now proposed is noted as a great improvement.

 

2.         Scale

 

The bulk of the building on Anzac Parade is consistent with the proposed future character for the precinct.

 

3.         Built Form. 

 

The cross section at roof and Level 1 mezzanine has been improved.  See also comments in 10 below.

 

Predominant.

 

4.         Density

 

The Panel queries the proposed density to a very high use of the permissible envelope, that result in the amenity problems discussed below.

 

5.         Resource, Energy, Water Efficiency

 

The proposed acoustic treatment of ventilation to individual units (baffled vents) is strongly supported – suggest DA condition to that effect.

 

Proposed sun shading is supported.

 

There is an inadequate area of deep soil zone on the site and efforts must be made to remedy this.

 

6.         Landscape

 

The panel seeks further deep soil planting, to allow the planting and long-term sustainability of large trees.

 

7.         Amenity

 

The Panel notes that:

 

·          Section of top-floor units is now more appropriate for their aspect.

·          Some improvements have been made to unit planning.

 

The Panel still has concerns about the long corridor configuration: these, at least require more open air access and, on level 3, improved sightlines.

 

8.         Safety & Security

 

Direct access to GF unit now proposed is supported.  Entrances to apartment floors have been improved.

 

9.         Social Dimensions

 

No issues raised

 

10.       Aesthetics

 

The Panel considers that the form of the roof to the top floor units in the section of the building connecting its Darling St part and the main façade to Anzac Parade is unsatisfactory and needs to be “set back” and simplified to create a clearer articulation between its two parts.

 

Investigate making the roof on the Darling St part of the building less dramatic and improving the integration of its interior and exterior forms.

 

11.       Conclusion

 

The design has been improved in a number of respects, however there are still a few issues that need to be addressed.

 

Commend applicant on responses to issues raised in previous Interim Design Review Panel comments.

 

Density remains a concern.

 

Panel notes that design code states that maximum building depth is 18 metres, whereas proposal has 19.5 metres.

 

The amended plans submitted by the applicant on 12 June 2003 are considered to have addressed the issues raised by the Panel.

 

6.6       Sydney Airports Corporation

 

Under the provisions of the Air Navigation (Building Control) Regulations the concurrence of the Federal Airports Corporation is required as the building proposed on the subject site falls within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport.

 

The Corporation has advised that there is no objection to a building on this site having a maximum height of the building at RL 51.655 metres above AHD. Any increase to the height of the building above this level will require a new application. The Corporation also notes that temporary structures and construction equipment such as cranes may require a height greater than RL 51.655 and that separate approval from SAC will be required for such structures (see Condition 8).

 

6.7       Police

 

The application was referred to Maroubra Police on 21 March 2003 for comment in relation to the principles for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). Recommendations are as follows:

 

·        Landscaping be maintained and kept to levels that do not allow high levels of potential concealment or possible entrapment areas for victims.

·        Landscaping should allow for passive surveillance of the development from surrounding streets.

·        Strict access control should be enforced to all areas of the building that constitute entry or exit points. All carpark, building, elevator and stairwell access should be controlled via security device i.e: Key or electronic keypad (code). Security measures are not indicated on the plans.

·        Landscaping should channel pedestrian access to “target areas” to avoid inappropriate use.

·        Territorial reinforcement should be instituted where possible in communal areas. These areas such as rear landscape garden are to be maintained and designed to encourage usage by residents.

·        Space management should be a priority regarding the proposed retail section of the building, which is accessed via Anzac Parade. It is important to maintain the appearance of the area and institute rapid vandalism and grafitti removal principles to encourage greater usage, which would reduce the criminal activity to this location.

·        Although a lighting plan was not included with the application it is important that all lighting conform to Australian Standards.

 

Recommendations have been proposed as conditions of consent (See Conditions 5 and 6) wherever possible.

 

6.8       Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The original application was forwarded to the RTA for comment. The RTA responded on July 7 with comments for Council’s consideration relating to carparking, including design and allocation of spaces, egress gradients and sight distances, security doors and road traffic noise attenuation. The RTA provided conditions for inclusion in any development consent (see Conditions 96, 99-100).

 

The RTA also reviewed the application for use of the Anzac Parade footpath for restaurant purposes. The RTA advised it did not concur with the proposed use  for six reasons relating to safety, pedestrian congestion, accessibility and public liability issues.

 

Despite the RTA’s advice, the podium and footpath dining is considered to be the best option for resolving flooding issues on the site whilst incorporating active frontages and achieving a consistent streetscape treatment between the subject site and adjoining Doncaster Plaza development.

 

Negotiations are ongoing with the RTA and deferred commencement condition 1 allows for these negotiations to be finalised prior to the consent becoming operative.

 

6.9       Department of Sustainable Natural Resources

 

Due to the depth of basement excavation proposed and possible requirements for dewatering the application was forwarded the Department of Sustainable Natural Resources (DSNR) for comment on 20 March 2003.

 

Correspondence from DSNR dated 19 May 2003 indicates that the development will require a Water Licence under the Water Act, 1912. The Department has issued General Terms of Approval for the Licence which are attached to this report (see Attachment B).

 

The Department also recommended that the following be considered in assessment of the application (Items 1-4 are issues that will be addressed by the applicant in their application for a Water Licence).

 

1.   Method of dewatering

2.   The volumes of groundwater that will need to be discharged as well as the instantaneous rate of discharge

3.   The timing and duration of time for pumping

4.   The method of disposal of this water

5.   The water quality of this discharge and whether this may require to have a licence from the EPA

6.   The likely risk of dewatering causing off-site impacts to surrounding buildings, infrastructure and other features due to sand compaction and surface settlement.

 

Proposed condition 10 requires the applicant to approach the EPA for a licence, if required. In relation to settlement the Department has advised:

 

To minimise settlement impacts 6-9 re-injection wells are proposed be installed along the downstream face of the site. The designed injecting rate for the site is 1.6L/s into the sandbed aquifer.

 

A network of groundwater monitoring bores will be installed and, maintained throughout the entire construction period. The groundwater quality study indicates that on the basis of the laboratory analysis, the groundwater contains some low concentration of general contaminants, however the water appears to be suitable for re-injection purposes with suitable pre-treatment (investigations are still being undertaken).

 

As part of this applications assessment, the Department recommends that the following be considered.

 

Settlement Monitoring

 

Council needs to be satisfied that suitable provisions for settlement monitoring are considered or be incorporated in any determination. In this regard establishment of suitable located settlement monitoring stations is recommended.

 

DSNR have provided general and specific terms of approval, which have been included as conditions of consent (see Attachment 1). A deferred commencement condition requiring detailed reports on proposed dewatering has been included (see Deferred Commencement Condition 5).

 

Amendments were forwarded to the DSNR, who provided a verbal response that their original advice was applicable to the revised scheme.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2 in area there is no requirement for a master plan under clause 40A of RLEP98.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·             Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·             State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

·             State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

·             State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP65)

·             Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan, 2002

·             DCP - Parking

·             Section 94 Contributions Policy

 

(a)          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3(b) 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:-

 

Kensington Town Centre

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

42B(4) Development Controls

(a) Max. No. Storeys

6

7

No1

(b) Max. Height

21.6m

21.3m

Yes2

(c) Min. Frontage

20m

Anzac 66m

Darling 46m

Yes3

(d) Min. Allotment Size

900m2

1,902.5m2

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

42B

Contaminated Land

Yes

Complies, site will be suitable for residential use after remediation.

1 SEPP 1 Objection lodged in support of non-compliance

2 Building height measured to underside of ceiling of topmost floor as per clause 42B(5)

3 Generally not applicable to corner sites

 

The subject site is zoned Local Business (Zone No. 3(B) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Clause 42B(3) of the Randwick LEP removes consideration of  the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), height and landscaping standards for the 3(B) zone in the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The applicant has lodged an objection under SEPP 1 to support non-compliance with the number of storeys standard in the LEP. This has been considered in detail under Section 8(b) of this report. The proposal achieves compliance with all other statutory standards set by Clause 42(B).

 

Clause 42B of the LEP also outlines the following specific objectives for the Kensington Town Centre:

 

(a)  To achieve high quality design in all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain;

(b)  To encourage a vibrant and active town centre that provides a range of facilities and services that benefit the locality;

(c)  To provide opportunities for residential development in the town centre which compliment the primary business function of the town centre;

(d)  To encourage a variety of medium density housing forms which compliment the development within the town centre and does not impact adversely on surrounding residential areas;

(e)  To encourage the amalgamation of land to facilitate redevelopment within the town centre;

(f)   To facilitate development within the town centre that supports regional entertainment industry;

(g)  To ensure that social and cultural needs are considered with any development proposals in the town centre;

(h)  To facilitate the provision of vehicular access and off-street parking to support the local businesses;

(i)   To ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in the town centre;

(j)   To ensure appropriate conversation of the environmental heritage and recognition of the characteristics of buildings with architectural merit;

(k)  To require and encourage and environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development; and

(l)   To improve the overall environmental quality of Kensington Town Centre.

 

The general compliance of the development with the statutory standards set by Clause 42(B) indicates overall consistency with the objectives of the Kensington Town Centre as required by the RLEP.

 

The development meets the urban design objective of the DCP in relation to corner buildings. The proposal has been amended in order to meet high quality design standards and make a contribution to the existing streetscape on Anzac Parade. It is considered that the proposal meets objective (a), above.

 

The development provides for retail/commercial uses at ground floor and residential above. The proposal meets the criteria for floor to ceiling heights which have been introduced to ensure there is flexibility in new developments within the town centre. The proposal is considered to provide opportunities for new facilities and services to the locality in accordance with objective (b), above.

 

The provision of 67 units on the subject site (which is located on the southern periphery of the town centre) is compatible with the primary business function of the centre. The development provides for commercial tenancies on the ground floor that will provide additional opportunities for local business. The building will provide a mix of one, two and three bedroom units, providing additional housing choice in close proximity to the facilities in the town centre. Compliance with Council’s amenity controls for privacy and overshadowing has demonstrated that the building will not adversely impact on surrounding residential areas. The development is consistent with objectives (c) and (d), above.

 

The site meets the site area requirements for redevelopment and will not inhibit future opportunities for site consolidation. The development meets objective (e) above.

 

The development does not directly support the regional entertainment industry. However, the DCP does not suggest this is a major objective for this particular site. The development will increase the local population which is considered to be of some value in supporting the local entertainment opportunities on offer, through both patronage and potential employees. The ground floor of the development may be tenanted by restaurants or cafes which will also support the existing entertainment uses. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to objective (f).

 

The development will not impact on nearby heritage items, is not located in a heritage conservation area and there are no items of environmental heritage existing on the site, it is considered that the development will make a positive contribution to the streetscape of Anzac Parade. The development is satisfactory with regard to objective (j), above.

 

The development has been considered in terms of social and cultural needs, environmentally sustainable development principles and transport and servicing in the subsequent parts of this report and is considered to meet objectives (g), (i) and (k), above.

 

The development in its scale, architectural form and proposed uses will contribute to the environmental quality of the town centre and is consistent with objective (l), above.

 

Strata subdivision is not proposed as part of this application. Subdivision of the development will be the subject of a separate application to Council (see Condition 12).

 

(b)        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

 

An objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged to support the non-compliance with Council’s 6 storey height limit as set by clause 42(B)4(a) of the LEP 1998. the proposed development is seven storeys for 9 metres of the Darling Street frontage. The applicant has argued that strict compliance with clause 42(B)4(a) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·          The building height is fully contained within the absolute height limit of 21.6 metres and complies with the building envelope for the site.

·          The departure is attributable to only one apartment situated on ground level along Darling Street behind the 4.5m high commercial level, which effectively extends from ground level to podium level.

·          The departure will have no impact on the bulk of the building which constitutes only 72% of the building envelope and is significantly less than the permissible 85% (cl.4.2.1 of Kensington Town Centre DCP 2002).

·          The development satisfies all the objectives for building heights, identified under 4.2.4 of the DCP as it:

-       has an appropriate scale relationship to the width of Darling Street and Anzac Parade and is fully contained within the building envelope prescribed in the DCP for the subject site (cl.4.3.6 of the DCP).

-       constituted a well-proportioned building, which relates harmoniously to the street width and achieves harmonious visual transition from Anzac Parade towards the lower scale residential flat buildings along Darling Street.

-       will have no impact on the existing public view corridors from the Randwick Racecourse to the Monastery of the Missionary of the Sacred Heart.

-       will have no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential buildings or visual overshadowing and visual privacy.

 

The proposal meets the objectives of the controls for height and number of storeys. As stated by the applicant, the proposal meets the floor to ceiling heights set by the DCP. The non-compliance with the number of storeys control occurs where apartment 1 is located on the ground floor level. The non-compliance arises from habitable areas being located at ground level and the provision of residential accommodation at podium level. The rest of the building does not result in non-compliance as the double-height retail spaces accommodate the residential podium level within their floor to ceiling height. In order to comply, the applicant could delete apartment 1 at ground and podium floor levels. This would remove the technical non-compliance but would not have any significant impact on the built form as these areas would be voids.

 

Deletion of this unit to achieve compliance was raised as an option, however Council’s Design Review Panel considered that the residential component at ground level was adequate with regard to amenity and provided flexibility to use the ground floor unit for a home business. The viability of providing retail frontage to Darling Street was also considered in the decision to retain an apartment at street level. Apartment 1 on podium level has a long northerly aspect and will provide excellent amenity to future residents. This apartment also has outlook to the garden podium. It would be undesirable to delete a unit in this location as it offers good environmental performance and the best aspect in the development.

 

As noted by the applicant, the proposal generally meets the building envelope controls and will achieve a desirable outcome in terms of streetscape and urban design of the town centre. The proposal achieves the objectives of the number of storeys control, despite technical non-compliance with the standard. It is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

 

(c)          State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated for rezoning and development applications.

 

A detailed site investigation was undertaken by Environmental Consulting Services in response to Council’s request for information. The outcome of this report is discussed under section 6.2 by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building. Conditions of consent requiring a site audit statement and site audit report have been proposed to ensure that the applicant’s claims that the site is suitable for high density residential use.

 

Council has carefully considered the issue of contamination, proposed appropriate conditions and fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

(d)        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been referred to Council’s Interim Design Review Panel twice for comment in relation to the principles of good design. The Panel’s final comments indicated there was still some concern in relation to density, amenity of circulation spaces, building depth and the relationship of building forms.

 

The amended plans received on 12 June 2003 were sought in response to the Panel’s comments and have addressed these outstanding issues by reducing the habitable roof space, design amendments and improving circulation spaces where possible. Due to the high number of cross over and cross through apartments to achieve good amenity, the corridor on level 3 could not be ‘straightened’ as suggested by the Panel.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.         Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan, 2002

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

COMPLIANCE

 

site amalgamation

i.    The minimum frontage for new development is 20 metres, except for corner sites.

Corner site so not strictly applicable, however site complies.

New built form

i.    Demonstrate that the achieved Gross Floor Area occupies no more than 80-85% of the Building Envelope.

Complies

articulation zone

i.    Physically articulate all facades to achieve an Articulation Zone with a minimum depth of 600mm and a maximum depth of 2.5 metres within the most extreme points of the Building Envelope.

 

ii.   Ensure that buildings along Anzac Parade reinforce the continuity of the street edge.

Does not comply see discussion under section 9.3

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

building heights

i.    Comply with the maximum envelope heights specified in the Block by Block controls.

 

ii.   Achieve the minimum heights in respect of each storey.

 

iii.  Achieve a built form which reflects the proportions of the Building Envelopes specified in the Block by Block controls.

 

iv.  Comply with the maximum height of any building as a relationship between storeys and height to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floor.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Minor non compliance to Darling Street, see SEPP 1 under section 8(b). Generally complies.

building zone

 

i.    Align buildings to the street and line of kerb.

 

Complies

 

setbacks

 

i.    Unless otherwise specified in the Block by Block controls, comply with the setbacks.

N/A Block by Block Controls Apply

 

BLOCK 06 CONTROLS

i.    Nil setback for first 5 storeys

ii.   Setback 6th storey 4m from street boundaries.

Complies

Anzac Pde Setback varies due to curved frontage majority of building setback 4m

Darling Street nil setback for 13.7m of frontage, then setback 1.5m

Accessibility

iii.  Achieve building/retail/commercial entrances which are flush with the footpath/external ground level or provide a suitably ramped alternative.

Complies

 

 

 

rights of carriageway

i.    Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, direct vehicular access from Anzac Parade is not permitted.

Complies

 

 

on-site parking

i.    Minimum dimensions for carpark design and layout must be based on the dimensional requirements of a service van as described in the DCP – Parking.

 

ii.   Tandem or stack parking (maximum two spaces) is permitted where these spaces are attached to the same strata title comprising a single apartment, subject to the maximum parking limit applying.

 

iii.  Council may consider:

·    A limited number of stack parking spaces (maximum two spaces) for staff parking associated with retail uses

·    Stack parking spaces (maximum two spaces) for other non-residential purposes subject to suitable management arrangements such as valet management of those spaces.

 

vii. Carparking areas may be designed as semi-basement car parking provided that:

·    The roof is not more than 1.5 metres above ground level;

·    The roof is landscaped as communal and/or private open space;

·    The design results in building frontages that are level with the street.

 

viii.          Where the roof to a semi-basement carpark abuts with a street frontage, ensure that the roof is no higher than 900mm above ground level, measured across any sloping frontage.

 

ix.   Submit a Traffic and Parking Analysis prepared by a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer.

Does not comply

 

 

 

 

Tandem spaces have been used to accommodate parking for larger units – see discussion under Parking.

 

 

Used for commercial spaces

 

Used for commercial spaces

 

 

 

 

 

4m does not comply – Darling Street carpark entry

 

Complies

 

Complies

Does not comply – Darling Street frontage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

active frontages

iii.  Minimise blank walls at ground level.

 

iv.  Maximise glazing for retail uses, but break large glazed shopfronts into discrete sections.

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

awnings

i.    Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development to the extent indicated on the Block by Block controls.  Generally awnings should be 3 metres deep.

 

ii.   Setback awnings a minimum of 600mm from the kerb.

 

iii.  Cantilever awnings from the buildings with a minimum soffit height of 3.5 metres.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

building entrances

i.    Provide clearly identifiable, sheltered, well-lit and safe spaces to enter the building, meet and collect mail.

 

ii.   Provide separate entrances, where possible, for pedestrians and vehicles, commercial and residential occupants and ground floor apartments.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Façade composition

i.    Ensure that each building has a unique identity.

 

ii.   Design buildings to address the street but ensure that the rear and side facades also provide visual interest to the street and surrounding neighbours.

 

iii.  Compose the façade with an emphasis on vertical elements.

 

iv.  Ensure that the façade expresses a tripartite arrangement which clearly indicates a bottom, middle and top related to the overall proportion of the building.  Generally, the bottom will read as the area below the awning, and the top will read as the uppermost, setback storeys.

 

v.   To enhance articulation, lightweight structures, sunshading devices and balconies may penetrate the building envelope (but not the property line) by up to 600mm.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply some balconies overhang property boundary. Condition of consent imposed.

materials & finishes

i.    Comply with colours, finishes and materials identified in the Randwick City Council Kensington Town Centre Style Guide.

 

ii.   Use high quality and durable materials and finishes.

 

iii.  Use pastel or earthy colour schemes and avoid corporate and bright colours.

Complies, subject to tinted glazing being submitted for approval

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

rear colonnades

i.    Include rear colonnades where shown in the Block by Block controls.

Does not comply

 

roof forms

i.    Wholly contain lift over-runs and service plants within roof structures or roof lines.

 

ii.   Minimise the bulk and mass of roofs and their potential for overshadowing.

 

iii.  Design roofs to generate an interesting skyline and enhance views from adjoining developments.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

habitable roof space

ii.   Connect habitable roof space to an apartment below.

 

iii.  Demonstrate that proposed habitable roof spaces optimise apartment mix and layout and assist to achieve dual aspect apartments with natural ventilation.

 

iv.  Demonstrate that the total floor area devoted to habitable roof space does not exceed 40% of the floor below.

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

solar access

i.    Maintain sunlight access to private and public open spaces and habitable rooms of adjoining development for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.  If existing sunlight access to adjoining development is already below this level, maintain whatever exists.

 

ii.   Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces.

 

iii.  Ensure that living spaces of at least 75% of apartments receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9.00am and 3.pm on 21 June.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

visual privacy

i.    Organise the layout of spaces within the building to achieve visual privacy.

 

ii.   Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, orient primary openings on all developments to the front and rear of the building.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

acoustic privacy

viii.          Comply with BCA requirements for acoustic control of airborne noise and impact noise between apartments.

Complies

 

 

 

apartment layout

i.    Achieve apartments with dual aspect to allow direct flow of air from one side of the apartment to the other.

 

ii.   Use a variety of apartment styles to maximise natural ventilation and access to natural daylight.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

apartment mix

i.    Provide a mix of apartments.

 

ii.   Ensure that studios and one-bedroom apartments comprise no more than 40% of the total number of apartments.

 

vi.  Ensure that ground floor apartments comprise a mix of apartment types, where gardens, adaptability and accessibility are more easily achieved for elderly people, families with children or people with disabilities.

 

vii. Provide access for people with a disability to and within apartments at the following rates:

0-14 apartments   0

15-29 apartments   1

30-44 apartments   2

45-60 apartments   3

and so on.

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies 3 dwellings provided

 

 

 

apartment size

i.    Comply with the following minimum apartment sizes:

Studio   40m²

One-bedroom cross-through   50m²

One-bedroom cross-over   55m²

Two-bedroom corner   80m²

Two-bedroom cross-through   90m²

Two-bedroom cross-over   90m²

Two-bedroom corner with study   120m²

Three-bedroom   125m²

For each additional bedroom   20m²

 

iii.  Comply with the following minimum apartment widths:

·    Studios - 3.5m clear internal width

·    One, two and three-bedroom apartments – 4.5m clear internal width

·    Crossover/cross-through apartments more than 18m deep – 4m clear internal width

 

iv.  Comply with the following minimum room dimensions:

·    Main bedrooms – 12m² , shortest wall 3.0m

·    Other bedrooms – 9m² , shortest wall 2.5m

·    Living rooms – 15m² , shortest wall 3.5m

·    Dining rooms – 9m² , shortest wall 2.5m

 

Generally complies (see discussion in section 9.7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally complies (see discussion in section 9.7)

building use

i.    Development fronting Anzac Parade & Doncaster Avenue:

·    Ground floor – retail and commercial

·    Storey 2 – commercial and residential (retail uses if justified by an economic impact study)

·    Storeys 3 and above – residential

 

Complies

 

 

 

floor to ceiling heights

ii.   Unless otherwise indicated on the Block by Block controls, comply with the minimum and maximum floor to ceiling heights and floor to floor heights.

 

iii.  Ensure that no storey has a greater floor to ceiling/floor to floor height than the storey below.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

garden or ground floor apartments

v.   Clearly define private and public spaces.

 

vi.  Provide maximum flexibility for future alternative uses by complying with floor to ceiling height controls.

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

stairs, lifts & corridors

i.    Maximise the amenity of circulation spaces by providing generous spaces, eg. high ceilings, wide corridors.

 

ii.   Provide at least one lift to service no more than 40 apartments over the full rise of the building.

 

iii.  Optimise security by grouping apartments to a maximum of 10 around a common lobby.

 

vi.  Ensure that no apartment is no more than 12 metres away from a lift.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

storage

i.    Provide accessible and adequate storage at the following rates per apartment:

Studio   6m²

One-bedroom   8m²

Two-bedroom   10m²

Three or more bedrooms  12m²

 

ii.   Provide at least 50% of this storage within the apartment accessible from either a hall or a living space.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

energy efficiency

 

i.    Comply with a minimum 3.5 star House Energy Rating for the building envelope of each new apartment.

 

viii.          Where possible provide solar hot water heaters integrated into the design of each new development.

Complies

 

 

 

Not provided

 

 

lighting efficiency

i.    Design buildings to maximise available natural light without creating major heat gain pathways.

 

ii.   Optimise the number of north-facing windows.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

natural ventilation

i.    Ensure that all apartments are single-loaded or dual aspect to allow the direct flow of air from one side of the apartment to the other.

 

ii.   Consider the use of crossover apartments.

Small number of single aspect with assisted ventilation

 

 

Crossover apartments provided

site servicing & waste management

i.    Incorporate all stages of waste management into new development.

 

iii.  Design waste management so that residents find it convenient to use.

 

x.    Provide adequate space within new development for the unloading and loading of service vehicles.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Loading bay provided

 

 

space heating & cooling

i.    Use passive solar design to reduce the necessity for mechanical heating and cooling.

Complies

 

stormwater management

i.    Minimise runoff by the reuse of stormwater for irrigation.

 

vi.  Set building floor levels with freeboard of at least 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level.

Details not provided

 

 

Complies

 

 

communal open space

i.    Maximise ground level communal open space.

 

ii.   Locate communal open spaces so they form a focus of the development.

 

iii.  Avoid fragmenting communal open space.

 

iv.  Design communal open spaces which provide a pleasant outlook for residents.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

private open space

i.    Provide at least one balcony or terrace for each apartment directly accessible from the main living area.

 

ii.   Ensure that the main balcony extends the living space by being sufficiently well proportioned to accommodate a dining table and chairs, with additional space for flower boxes or potted plants.

 

iii.  Ensure that the main balcony has a minimum depth of 2.5 metres and a minimum area of:

·    6m² for studio/one-bedroom apartment

·    10m² for two/three-bedroom apartment

·    15m² for four/more-bedroom apartment

 

iv.  Assist visual privacy by recessing and/or partially enclosing the main balcony.

 

v.   Ensure that additional balconies have a minimum depth of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 2.1 metres.

 

vii. Orientate balconies to maximise solar access.

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

safety & security

 

iii.  Orientate entrances towards the public street and ensure visibility between entrances, foyers and the street.

 

iv.  Provide direct and well-lit access between carparks and apartments, between carparks and lift lobbies and to all apartment entrances.

 

xvii.         Submit a formal Crime Risk Assessment with every Development Application comprising 20 or more new apartments.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Submitted

 

 

b.         DCP – Parking

 

Parking rates and layout requirements for development in the Kensington Town Centre are contained within the DCP - Parking.

 

Item

DCP Parking Requirement

Proposed

Allocation

Complies

Residential

26x1 b/r

34x2 b/r

7x3 b/r

 

26x1 =26

34 x 1.2 = 40.8

7 x 1.5 = 10.5

 

26

40 (in car stackers/tandem)

14 (in car stackers)

 

Yes

No

 

Yes

Visitor

1 per 4 units

67/4=17

13 day

17 night

No1

Yes

Subtotal Residential

94 spaces

94/98 spaces

Yes/Yes

Commercial/ Retail

1 per 40m2

GFA

444m2= 11

 

 

4

 

 

No

Total

105 Spaces

98/102 Spaces

No/No

Accessible Spaces

 

 

 

Residential

3

22

Yes

Commercial

2

2

Yes

1Complies with reduced requirement as suggested by AIS

2One accessible space is to be provided at basement level via condition of consent

 

Condition 8 ensures the provision of commercial, residential and accessible parking to Council’s satisfaction. Discussion of compliance with Council’s DCP – Parking is included under Section 9.5 of this report.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

(a)                  Contaminated Lands Policy

 

As noted in the comments by the Manager, Environmental Health, the proposal has been assessed against Council’s Contaminated Lands Policy. Conditions proposed by the Manager, Environmental Health have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 18-38).

 

(b)                  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes additional dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities, townscape improvements and administration charges totalling $415,108.90 for the residential component of the development (see Condition 11).

 

In accordance with the Section 94 Contributions Plan, the 444m2 commercial component of the development attracts an additional townscape improvements levy of $19,092. A contribution is payable with regard to commercial carparking as the development falls short of the requirement for the retail/commercial areas. The s94 Contributions Plan allows for a contribution of 10% of the required parking or similar minor amount be levied. A contribution for 3 spaces (30% of total) is considered appropriate in this instance and has been included in Condition 11.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     New Built Form

 

The allowable building depth under the DCP is 26 metres, inclusive of colonnades The proposal has a maximum depth of 25.898m at its northern end which meets the 26m requirement. The Anzac Parade wing of the proposal (majority of the building) has a depth of up to 21.15 metres with balconies extending to 24.75 metres and is well within the allowable envelope.

 

The proposal has a gross floor area of 7,438m2, inclusive of the habitable roof areas proposed. This represents 76% of the allowable building envelope, being the envelope exclusive of any habitable roof space allowances. This complies with the DCP control that the building occupy no more than 80-85% of the allowable building envelope to allow for adequate articulation and modulation of the built form.

 

The proposal does not provide a rear colonnade as suggested by the block controls in clause 4.3.6 of the DCP. This is not considered to be a major deficiency the proposal meets the objectives of the control, being to maximise opportunities for communal and private open space and articulation. A communal walkway area has been provided beyond the building line and sufficient communal open space has been accommodated on the site without the colonnade requirement. The use of the designated colonnade space to provide dwelling entries to podium level units will enliven the communal open space. The private courtyards and garden areas provided to these units will maximise privacy and private open space to the ground floor units, improving their amenity. This is considered to be a sensible option where residential uses are proposed adjoining communal open space.

 

Setbacks and the articulation zone required are addressed separately under section 9.3 of this report. The development satisfies the controls and objectives of section 4.2.1 of the DCP.

 

9.2       Height

 

The proposal has an overall height of 21.3 metres, measured to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost storey. This complies with Council’s control of 21.6 metres.

 

The proposal exceeds the number of storeys control under the DCP and LEP by one storey for a 9m x 15m portion of the building. This non-compliance and accompanying SEPP 1 objection has been discussed under section 8(b) and despite the additional level, the proposal meets the objectives of the number of storeys control.

 

The proposal meets the minimum and maximum floor to ceiling height controls set by the DCP to all levels. The compliance with these heights indicates that the proposal is not exceeding the number of storeys control at the expense of residential amenity or commercial viability.

 

The building envelope for this site requires a building proportion of 5:6. This proportion is achieved on the Anzac Parade frontage, but is exceeded along Darling Street where the building is 6 storeys, built to the street alignment. The building form has been increased in height in this location to provide corner emphasis. This is consistent with section 4.6.12 which allows exceptions to setbacks and encourages height at the corner. The proposed design and 6 storey height along Darling Street emphasises verticality at the corner. The  roof form and articulation of this element provide visual interest and legibility in the town centre. The treatment of the Darling Street façade as a single element and the proposed roof form define a clear skyline in accordance with the objectives for corner buildings in the DCP.

 

The DCP allows for nil setbacks to highlight corner buildings, the length of the nil setback is left open to allow for design. In this instance, Darling Street, which is a secondary street, has a greater number of storeys with a nil setback to the street (6, compared with 5 to Anzac Parade). This treatment does not reflect the hierarchy of the two streets directly, however the width of Darling Street and the open nature of its intersection with Anzac Parade makes this site highly visible. The entire Darling Street elevation has been treated as a corner element and has been designed to appear as a separate building from the main Anzac Parade frontage. This provides articulation to the scheme and clearly defines the Darling Street wing from the Anzac Parade portion.

 

The maximum building height in the Town Centre is measured to the underside of the topmost ceiling. The purpose of this control is to encourage interesting roof forms that can contribute to the overall design of the building and the skyline, as well as provide opportunities to conceal plant and equipment and habitable areas within the roof. To ensure habitable areas within roof forms are not employed as ‘quasi storeys’, they are limited in area to 40% of the floor below. The applicant originally proposed ‘habitable roof space’ that exceeded this 40% requirement and increased the visual bulk and density of the building. The amendments made to the proposal reduce the area proposed as ‘habitable roof space’ (Level 5 Upper) to an area of 415m2, being 40% of the 1,020m2 provided on Level 5. This meets Council’s control. The form of the roof has changed as a result of comments made by Council’s Interim Design Review Panel, to improve solar access and energy efficiency. The skillioned roof forms proposed provide a clear definition to the top of the building and provide visual interest at the corner and side elevations of the building as a result of their unusual profile. The development satisfies the criteria for inclusion of habitable roof space within buildings.

 

The development will maintain public view corridors and will not result in overshadowing or visual privacy impacts. The right-of-way to the rear of the site and the proposed podium level separates the site from existing development on Darling Street and reduces the need for the Darling Street elevation to provide a ‘visual transition’. The proposal meets the objectives for Building Heights under section 4.2.4 of the DCP.

 

9.3     Articulation Zone/ Setbacks

 

The first 5 storeys of the proposed development are set to the street edge of Anzac Parade and Darling Street. This meets the controls of the DCP for setbacks on Block 06. The 6th storey (Level 5) is setback an average of 4 metres on Anzac Parade and generally meets Council’s setback control for this site. The Anzac Parade frontage is curved and meeting setback requirements at all points of the frontage is difficult. The corner element at the northern end of the Anzac Parade frontage has a nil setback in accordance with the DCP’s objective for corner emphasis.

 

The 6th storey at Darling Street is not setback 4 metres as stipulated by Council’s DCP, but remains at the boundary alignment for a length of 13.7 metres. The remainder of this storey is setback 1.5 metres. This is considered acceptable in this case as the open nature of the Darling Street intersection warrants a large corner element composition. To setback a portion of this elevation the required distance would erode the massing of the building and the corner element to Darling Steet. In addition, this elevation faces due north and provides the best aspect of the entire site. Reduction of areas on this side of the building would reduce the overall amenity and environmental performance of the building and remove a distinctive and robust element of the development’s streetscape presentation.

 

To the rear the podium level of the proposal is setback 4m from the general line of the building in accordance with the DCP control. The DCP stipulates this space is to provide a colonnade, however this development proposes balcony and courtyard spaces to podium level ‘garden apartments’ (see discussion above). The 6th storey is setback 2-4m from the 5th storey. This does not comply with the DCP controls for approximately 16m of the rear elevation. The elements that are setback only 2m are comprise bedrooms and will not result in visual privacy impacts. The elevation of these elements minimises the impact of non-compliance on bulk and scale as sightlines from the communal open space will be obscured by the protruding balconies of lower levels. All storeys of the building are located a minimum of 9.5m from surrounding residential (strata titled) development that is unlikely to change. This meets the control of 6 metres required by the DCP.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to setbacks.

 

The building form has been composed having a street edge building to Anzac Parade and Darling Street with these two elements being joined by recessed edge pieces that are separately roofed. This breaks down the overall bulk of the building and allows for changes in the materials and expression of the building façade.

 

The proposal provides an articulation zone that ranges from 600mm to 2.5 metres in depth. The Anzac Parade elevation is well articulated with recessed balconies, blade walls, louvred and solid balustrading being key architectural elements. The Darling Street frontage is well articulated at the corner, balconies hold the street alignment with the building form being deeply recessed from the building alignment. This is repeated at the eastern end of the Darling Street façade. The central portion of this façade is articulated to a depth of 600mm by elements attached to the elevation. These do not provide significant relief or moulding but do provide shading to north-facing windows. The mouldings overhang the site boundaries, which is prohibited by the DCP. The wall is modulated by a change in colour and a recess of 200mm, which is not considered adequate to provide relief in the wall. This recess is to be increased to a minimum of 600mm to ensure that the development meets the requirements for articulation set by the DCP. Appropriate shading and articulation devices are to be incorporated into this façade within the boundary of the site (see deferred commencement condition 3 and 4).

 

Some articulation elements on both Darling St and Anzac Parade elevations have been shown overhanging the boundaries of the site. Subclause xiv. of 4.6.4 of the DCP indicates that balconies and other architectural elements are prohibited from penetrating the property line. The proposal (except the ground level podium to Anzac Parade) is to be constructed entirely within the site boundaries. This has been included as a general condition of consent (see condition 4).

 

9.4     Accessibility

 

Entrances to the residential and commercial portion of the development have been designed for ease of access. Adequate accessible parking has been provided on the site. Council’s Access Committee has provided comments on the application and is satisfied that it meets the criteria for accessibility. The development will be required to meet all requirements of the BCA and Australian Standards with regard to use of materials and finishes for accessibility.

 

The development meets the requirements of Section 4.4 of the DCP.

 

9.5     Access and Parking

 

Council has adopted the city wide DCP - Parking in relation to the Kensington Town Centre and the Kensington Town Centre DCP references this document for parking provision.

 

The applicant originally proposed 96 car spaces for a scheme which required 113 spaces. The changes made to the proposal have reduced the required parking to 105 spaces. The applicant provided a supplementary parking report and amended plans which indicated extensive use of mechanical car stackers. Using mechanical car stackers, the applicant was able to comply with Council’s parking requirement. However, these devices can only accommodate vehicles with a maximum height of 1.5 metres. As 4WD vehicles and some other vehicles commonly exceed this height, extensive use of car stackers is not supported as a large range of vehicles cannot use the stackers safely, regardless of whether a vehicle is already parked in the stacker or not. The use of some stackers to achieve parking is supported due to the high water table in the area.

 

The proposed allocation requires stackers to be dedicated to all of the three bedroom units and 20 of the two bedroom units. Larger units are likely to require more parking and this allocation is considered sensible. The parking allocation proposed results in a deficit of 1 space for the 2 bedroom component of the development, which is not considered significant given the proximity of the development to public transport on Anzac Parade. Some of the parking spaces for the one bedroom units will be accommodated at the ground floor level and these will require bollards being installed to ensure spaces are reserved for residents (see Condition 92).

 

The proposal falls short of Council’s visitor parking requirements during the day. It should be noted that Council’s requirements are more stringent than those indicated in the RTA guidelines. The proposal provides acceptable reduced parking provision during the day and the use of the loading bay spaces after hours results in compliance of the proposal with Council’s requirement at night (when visitors are most likely). The preferred allocation of spaces set by Condition 8 is considered adequate for the development.

 

The proposal also has a parking shortfall in relation to commercial parking spaces. Four spaces in tandem arrangement are provided for the commercial tenancies plus loading. Three of the spaces contributing to the shortfall of 7 can be provided for via Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan (see Section 8.2(b) of this report). This has been included in Condition 11.

 

The semi-basement parking is limited to 1.5 metres in height by the DCP to preserve streetscapes and ensure parking isn’t visually intrusive. The semi-basement parking provided in the proposal has a wall height of 4 metres (to the right of carriageway which forms part of the Doncaster Plaza site). The level of the semi-basement parking has been set by the need to raise the parking and retail areas above flood level. The non-compliance adjoins a right of way and will not significantly affect the public street frontage of the building. Landscaping is proposed to the edges of the wall to soften its appearance from surrounding development. The proposed semi-basement parking is satisfactory, despite non-compliance with the DCP.

 

A bicycle storage area has been provided at basement level 1 and will accommodate the required 29 bicycle spaces for the residential component of the development. It is unsatisfactory to locate further bike spaces for the commercial component on the residential parking level. The commercial requirement for bicycles is 1 space. This is not considered to be a significant non-compliance. Four disabled parking spaces are provided, with an additional residential space conditioned (see Condition 2). Three car wash bays (in visitor parking) have been provided, this is considered satisfactory and has been ensured by condition of consent (see Condition 130).

 

Vehicular access is provided from Darling Street on the northern boundary of the site. Negotiations to purchase the right-of-way which forms part of the Doncaster Plaza parcel were unsuccessful and the use of Darling Street for vehicular access meets Council’s DCP. The width of the vehicular crossing is 6.1m which complies with the DCP - Parking.

 

The AIS Department has advised that a loading dock with minimum height of 3.6 metres should be provided close to the Darling Street frontage of the development. The provision of such a facility at the street frontage would have a negative impact on the appearance of the building and streetscape presentation of the proposal. The area provided for loading within the ground floor level will provide adequate servicing, accommodating vans and small delivery vehicles. These types of vehicles are consistent with the anticipated requirements of the residential units and retail/ commercial uses proposed. The proposed loading arrangements for the site are supportable.

 

The proposed grade of 7% from street level to the semi-basement parking level comply with Council’s DCP –Parking. However, the 1:5 ramp gradients proposed within the development exceed the 16.7% allowed under the DCP by 3.3%. It is considered that gradient will not impact on safe and straightforward manoeuvring and appropriate transition grades have been incorporated into the design.

 

Council’s Director Assets and Infrastructure has made comment on the proposal and provided appropriate conditions.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Council’s DCP – Parking and the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

9.6     Building Exterior

 

Retail frontages are proposed at ground floor level to Anzac Parade. The commercial frontage wraps around the Darling Street corner providing continuity to the street edge. Glazing meets the requirements of the DCP for shopfronts and the proposed outdoor dining will enhance the vibrancy of the street and the town centre in general. The Darling Street frontage is occupied by one residential unit at ground floor. This unit has direct access from Darling Street, and has habitable rooms and balcony which are oriented to the street. This dwelling offers flexibility, it may be used in future as a home office or a commercial suite. The proposal meets the DCP requirements for building frontages.

 

An awning is proposed to the Anzac Parade frontage and commercial portion of the Darling Street frontage. The awning is 3.5m wide and has a soffit height of 3.5-4.0 metres and is setback from the kerb a minimum of 600mm. These dimensions match those specified by the DCP. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to awnings.

 

Residential entries are provided along Anzac Parade and Darling Street. These entrances are separated from the ground floor apartment on Darling Street, commercial entrances and are separated from vehicular and service entries. The entries can also be accessed from the carparking and are glazed for surveillance from the street. Mailboxes are provided in the lift lobbies for ease of access by residents.

 

The proposed elevations have been composed with a vertical emphasis in accordance with the performance criteria in the DCP. A variety of treatments to balconies and walls have been employed to provide distinction between sections of the building. Darling Street and Anzac Parade elevations have been designed to reflect their location on a prominent corner and to address the street. Human scale has been provided by the expression of balconies that define each level of the building and give a sense of scale to the overall massing of the building. The proposed podium treatment to the building at ground level provides human scale whilst accommodating flood levels, by elevating pedestrians and patrons to the finished floor level of the retail tenancies and is preferable to the alternative solution of elevating the retail tenancies above footpath level.

 

A sample board was provided with the application. The materials and colours proposed are from an ‘earthy’ palette that meets the performance criteria under the DCP. The louvres proposed to the Anzac Parade elevation are of powdercoated aluminium, a long lasting material with a durable finish. Clear, frameless glazing is proposed to the residential entries and clear operable glazing is proposed to commercial tenancies. A grey tinted glazing is proposed to the residential units. As no sample has been provided of this glazing it is difficult to determine its reflectivity and whether it will achieve a satisfactory appearance to the building. A sample of the grey tinted glazing is to be provided to the Director, Planning and Environment prior to any consent being operative (see Deferred Commencement condition 1). The materials and colours proposed are satisfactory (subject to conditions).

 

The proposed podium to allow for outdoor dining on the Anzac Parade footpath is considered to be the best option for amenity and safety of patrons and the public, vitality of the street and will ensure a consistent approach to the public domain and flood levels on Block 06 of the Town Centre (with the adjoining Doncaster Plaza development). As noted above, the inclusion of the podium in the development requires the concurrence of the RTA. This has been included as part of the proposed deferred commencement conditions (see Deferred Commencement Condition 1). Should the issues raised by the RTA not be resolved, the amended option of raising floor levels is acceptable.

 

Shadow diagrams have been provided with the application in accordance with Council’s requirements. The orientation of the site results in shadows cast by the proposal moving significantly throughout the day. At 9am additional shadow will be cast on the Anzac Parade roadway and the corner of the Lorne Avenue development site to the west. At midday shadows will be cast on a portion of Anzac Parade, the site itself and the approved building on the adjoining Doncaster Plaza site. Despite shadows being cast on the subject site and Doncaster Plaza site, the communal open space of these developments will remain largely in full sun. During midwinter afternoons, the southwestern corner of the residential flat building at 4-10 Darling Street will be affected by additional shadow. This portion of 4-10 Darling Street is largely south facing and currently overshadows itself. The proposal will not reduce sunlight to this building to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm, midwinter.

 

The development benefits from a northerly aspect to Darling Street. Apartments have been located on the northern side of the building and include balconies to maximise solar access. Units in the remainder of the development gain solar access during midwinter morning or afternoon periods and at midday. Cross over and cross through apartments achieve greater solar access than this. The proposal meets the requirement that 75% of dwellings receive three hours of solar access 9-3pm midwinter. The changes made to the roof form to orient it to the north rather than the west has improved the solar performance of the building. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access.

 

The proposal achieves good visual privacy between dwellings and between the development and existing buildings. The separation distance of the proposal from properties across Anzac Parade is over 40m, across Darling Street is over 20m and to 4-10 Darling Street a minimum of 16m (to the building line) and 7m (to the edge of the podium). These separation distances ensure overlooking of existing properties across Darling Street and Anzac Parade will not occur. The separation distance of 16+ metres to 4-10 Darling Street will ensure overlooking from the balconies and dwellings proposed to the rear of the building will not occur. The communal landscaped podium is located closer to 4-10 Darling Street, however screen planting to the edge of the podium will mitigate any privacy impacts on 4-10 Darling Street (which is separated from the subject site by a right-of-way). Due to the orientation of the Doncaster Plaza development being similar to the proposal and the large separation distances, the proposal will not result in visual privacy impacts to the adjoining development.

 

The proposed roof form, the definition of the corner and absence of a rear colonnade required under the DCP have been discussed in detail in preceding Sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, above.

 

9.7     Building Interior

 

Appropriate conditions of consent have been proposed by the Manger, Environmental Health and Building to ensure the proposal meets the requirements for acoustic insulation from traffic noise. The proposal will be required to meet BCA requirements for sound transmission between dwellings, as noted in the DCP. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to acoustics.

 

Apartments with dual aspect have been maximised with corner, cross through and cross over types provided. The proposal meets the requirements for apartment layout under the DCP. The development proposes 26 x 1 bed, 34 x 2 bed and 7 x 3 bed. The one bedroom component of the development represents 39% of the total number of units proposed. This meets the maximum of 40% under the DCP. Three (3) apartments should be provided as accessible dwellings under the DCP, three 1 bedroom cross through apartments have been designed for accessibility. All apartments are accessible by lift from the ground and basement levels, however the internal configuration of some units, is not conducive to accessible housing due to the internal stairs provided. The unit mix proposed is satisfactory.

 

Apartment, room and balcony sizes are generally more generous than required by the DCP. Two of the three bedroom cross over apartments do not comply with the minimum apartment size, however as all rooms meet the minimum requirements, this non-compliance is not significant. The combined living and dining area of the two bedroom unit on level 5 does not comply with the DCP requirement by 2.5m2. Despite this non-compliance the area can still accommodate furniture and provide good amenity to residents. The apartment sizes proposed are satisfactory.

 

The ground floor apartment satisfies streetscape, privacy, accessibility and flexibility requirements of the DCP. Circulation spaces have been amended in response to the Design Review Panel’s comments to try and minimise ‘dead’ spaces, improve sightlines to corridors and maximise natural daylighting to these spaces. Generally, the Panel were satisfied with the changes. The development provides adequate storage both within the apartments and basement levels and meets the DCP requirements.

 

The interior of the building is satisfactory with regard to the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

 

9.8     Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

The proposal incorporates natural ventilation to the majority of units in accordance with the requirements of the DCP. The proposal achieves satisfactory solar access to all dwellings and provides sun shading where required. The applicant has submitted a NatHERs rating of 3.5 stars for all dwellings.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to ESD. Council’s standard conditions in relation to ecologically sustainable development have been included in the recommendation.

 

9.9     Open Space

 

The proposed communal open space area of 482m2 is located to the rear of the site at podium level. The podium level provides a pleasant outlook for residents and is to be landscaped with substantial planting to provide screening. The proposal meets the performance criteria for provision of communal open space.

 

A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant that indicates a mixture of hard and soft landscaping to the podium level. To the northeastern corner of the site large plantings are proposed which will increase landscaping to Darling Street and will provide screening between the communal open space and surrounding developments. Council’s Manager Assets and Infrastructure Services has advised the plan is satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent (see Conditions 141 - 149).

 

Private open space has been provided to all units in the form of balconies and to podium level units as private courtyard gardens. Planter boxes assist in maintaining visual privacy and improve the streetscape presentation of the ground floor unit on Darling Street. The development meets the requirements of the DCP for open space.

 

9.10     Safety and Security

 

The proposal has addressed safety and security issues through the design of entrances, the location of lifts and providing opportunities for passive surveillance of the street and communal areas. The proposal has been referred to Maroubra Police for comment in relation to CPTED principles. In response to comment made by the Police in relation to the need for secured entry to all circulation areas and carparking areas and maintenance of landscaping, Conditions 5 and 6 have been proposed.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to safety and security.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the maximum number of storeys of the development is considered to be well-founded in the circumstances.

 

It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the Centre and the objectives contained Clause 42B of the RLEP and the Kensington Town Centre DCP. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the DCP and LEP.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the non-compliances with statutory and policy controls will not exacerbate impacts.

 

As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent, including deferred commencement conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Urban Affairs and Planning to vary the provisions of Clause 42B(4a) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Construction of a  new mixed use development comprising ground floor retail/commercial (4 units) with five (5) storeys of residential apartments above (67 units) and car parking provided at ground and basement level under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

 

AND

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 195/2003 for Construction of a  new mixed use development comprising ground floor retail/commercial (4 units) with five (5) storeys of residential apartments above (67 units) and car parking provided at ground and basement level at 214-238 Anzac Parade and 14 Darling Street, Kensington subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1.    Advice from the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) that no objection is raised to the proposed elevation of the footpath along Anzac Parade required to protect the development from flooding.    All requirements from the RTA are to be incorporated as part of the development approval.    In the event that the RTA does not agree to the elevated footpath being provided along the Anzac Parade site frontage,
the applicant is to submit suitably modified details of the proposal demonstrating that all new habitable and storage areas are suitably waterproofed up to 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level and that a high point is provided along the full width of any access point to the basement level that is at least 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level.  Any proposal is to demonstrate compliance with the Council’s standards for disabled access
.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board), including the tinted glazing proposed, are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

3.    Shading devices are to be provided to the northern elevation within the site boundaries. Details of the proposed sunshading are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

4.    The recess provided to the Darling Street elevation is to be increased from 200mm to 600mm to ensure adequate articulation and modelling of this façade. Details of the increased recess are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

5.    A report detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the consent becoming operational. The report shall be in general accordance with the recommendations made in the Hydro Geotechnical report by DF Dickson & Associates Pty Ltd dated 10 March 2003, and shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and must include but not limited to:

 

·              The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering

·              The zone of influence of any possible settlement

·              The location of any proposed re-injection points in relation to the property boundaries (where re-injection equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·              Monitoring of fluctuations of the water table during dewatering/construction to be undertaken by consulting engineers to ensure that the conditions of consent and requirements of the DSNR are satisfied.

·              The location of all proposed monitoring equipment in relation to the property boundaries (where monitoring equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·              The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries

·              The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment i.e.; so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential dwelling and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling

·              A statement from suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and Hydrological Engineers, with the concurrence of a Structural Engineer, that there will be no detrimental settlement to adjoining or nearby buildings using the chosen method of excavation/dewatering.

 

6.    Prior to the consent becoming operational, the applicant shall submit an amended flood study (prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic engineer and reviewed by a Council approved independent consultant), which determines the flood levels in the vicinity of the development site with the proposed elevated footpath being constructed along the Anzac Parade site frontage (as shown on drawing DA02, Issue B, by KannFinch Group, dated 10/3/2003).  The amended flood study shall specify the ground floor levels (and driveway high point) required along both the Darling Street and Anzac Parade site frontages to ensure that the proposed development will not be adversely affected by flooding.

 

Should the required floor levels (and driveway high point) be higher than those specified in the flood study by Toby Fiander and Associates dated 3 June 2003, amended plans showing the floor levels (and driveway high point) being raised to the required new levels shall be submitted to Council for approval.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the Issue D of the plans numbered DA01, DA02, Issue C of the plans numbered DA03-DA17 dated 10.06.03 in the amendments box., drawn by Kann Finch Group and stamped received by Council on 12/06/03, and Revision 02A of the landscape plans LA01 and LA02 dated 28.02.03 in the amendments box, drawn by Taylor Brammer and stamped received by Council on 12 March 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The development will require a Water Licence under the Water Act, 1912. The applicant is to apply for a water licence directly to the Department of Sustainable Resources in accordance with the general terms of approval provided at Attachment B.

 

3.         An additional accessible parking space is to be provided at Basement 1 level. This condition is imposed to ensure compliance with Council’s DCPs in this regard and provide adequate parking for the accessible units proposed. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

4.         The building must be wholly constructed within the site boundaries, with the exception of the proposed awning and any approved seating podium which may extend into Council’s footpath reserve and airspace as indicated on the approved plans. Details required by this condition are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

5.         Secured access is to be provided to the residential lobbies of the development and all carparking levels. An intercom system is to be provided at the entry to the carpark and at the entrance to all residential lobbies, allowing for communication between residents and visitors to the development. This condition is imposed to secure access to private areas of the development for the safety of residents.

 

6.         The additional landscaping details required by Condition 141 are to include the proposed external lighting schemes throughout the development. The landscape plan is to incorporate current Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and is to be duly certified by a qualified CPTED practitioner. This condition is imposed to ensure the safety of residents and visitors to the development. Details required by this condition are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Environment, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

7.         A separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council with regard to proposed usage of the four retail/ commercial tenancies proposed prior to occupancy. A separate application and licence application will also be required for any proposed footpath dining associated with these tenancies.

 

8.         Car Parking is to be allocated as follows:

 

Item

Basement Level

Residential

1 b/r

 

2 b/r

3 b/r

 

23 spaces (including 1 accessible space)

 

40 spaces (19 car stackers + 1 stacked space)

14 spaces (7 car stackers)

Visitor

Nil

Item

Ground Level

Residential

1 b/r

 

3 (including 2 accessible spaces)

Visitor

13 spaces (plus 4 loading bay spaces at night to be signposted), including 2 accessible spaces and 6 carwash bays.

Commercial/ Retail

4 spaces (2x tandem provision)

 

Details of this allocation are to be provided on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The four car spaces that comprise the daytime loading bay are to be appropriately signposted to allow for visitor parking from 6pm to 6am, 7 days. Details are to be provided on the Construction Certificate application. This condition is imposed to ensure appropriate allocation of car parking spaces within the development.

 

9.         A separate approval must be sought from Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd (SACL) for any temporary structure and/or equipment planned to be used during the construction.

 

Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed controlled activity (51.655 metres above AHD) and consequently, may not be approved under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations.

 

SACL advises that approval to operate construction equipment (ie: cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct.

 

Information required by SACL prior to any approval is to include:

§   the location of any temporary structure or equipment, ie. construction cranes, planned to be used during construction relative to Mapping Grid of Australia 1994 (MGA94);

§   the swing circle of any temporary structure/ equipment used during construction;

§   the maximum height, relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD) of any temporary structure or equipment (ie. construction cranes), intended to be used in the erection of the proposed structure;

§   the period of the proposed operation (ie. construction cranes) and desired operating hours for any temporary structures.

 

Any application for approval containing the above information, should be submitted to the Sydney Airports Corporation at least 35 days prior to commencement of works in accordance with the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations Statutory Rules 1996 No. 293, which now apply to this Airport.

 

For further information on Height Restrictions please contact Ms Lynne Barrington on (02) 9667 9217.

 

Under Section 186 of the Airports Act 1996, it is an offence not to give information to the Airport Operator that is relevant to a proposed “controlled activity” and is punishable by a fine of up to 50 penalty units.

 

The height of the prescribed airspace at the site is 51.0 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD). Protection of airspace is the policy of SACL, therefore any controlled activity penetrating the prescribed airspace and having been assessed by CASA as a hazardous object, will not be recommended for approval by SACL.

 

10.       The applicant is advised that removal of groundwater from the site may require a licence from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for discharge of this water. The applicant is to provide evidence that advice has been sought from the EPA with the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $111,158.42

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $  49,149.48

c)       for townscape improvements (residential portion)                        $254,376.00

d)       for townscape improvements (commercial portion)                      $  19,092.00

e)       for car parking                                                                            $  35,889.00

f)        Administration fee $425.00                                                         $       425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction

for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

12.       This approval does not extend to strata subdivision of the completed building. A separate application must be lodged for strata approval.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency:

 

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

 

14.       External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

15.       Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

16.       The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

 

17.       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.

 

Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

18.       The applicant is to engage an Environment Protection authority (EPA) Accredited Site Auditor. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use; Health based investigation Level NEHF D criteria. A Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report is to be submitted to and accepted by Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, stating that the site is suitable for the intended development and use.

 

The Site Audit Statement must be unconditional, in that, it must not include any conditions requiring or recommending any works or monitoring after the commencement of building works.

 

19.       The site audit statement shall be developed and prepared in accordance with the following:

 

a)         The proponent shall engage the services of a site auditor holding current accreditation in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

 

b)         All remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and Planning NSW, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

c)         The remediation of the site including ground water must fully comply with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation, Regulations and Standards.

 

d)         Any beneficial reuse of material onsite is to be monitored and classified by a suitably experienced environmental specialist, together with the site auditor. Such material must be certified by a Site Audit Statement (SAS) together with a Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) in the format defined by the Contaminated Land Management Regulation 1998 and shall be furnished to Council prior to the commencement of building works. The site audit statement issued to Council shall be unconditional, in that it requires no further monitoring, on going review or remedial actions, and shall cover both land and groundwater.

 

e)         The Consultant and Auditor, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns (for example, the potential effects on wildlife) and the protection of ground and surface water.

 

f)          Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works, which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination, shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

20.       All remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and Planning NSW, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

21.       Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

•           New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

•           The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

          The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001;

•           Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

•           Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

22.       The underground storage tanks must be removed in accordance with:

 

·        Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and

·        WorkCover Authority requirements (this requires writing in advance to the Chief Inspector of Dangerous Goods, WorkCover Authority, Locked Bag 10, Clarence Street, Sydney 2000 and complying with conditions imposed).

 

In the event of conflict between AIP Code of Practice and WorkCover requirements the latter shall prevail.

 

23.       Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

24.       Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the site auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘virgin excavated natural material’ is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

25.       Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works, which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination, shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

26.       All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

27.       On-site land farming of contaminated soil is not permitted, except with the written approval of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

28.       Prior to the commencement of works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times.  Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

29.       All remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

 

Monday – Friday          7am – 5pm

Saturday                       8am – 5pm

No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

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

 

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

 

31.       The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

                        Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the   construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

33.       The use of the commercial tenancies and internal fit-outs shall be subject to a separate development application and consent, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

The project specific criteria for the mechanical plant noise is (as listed in the acoustical report dated 7 March 2003, prepared by Hyder Consulting) when measured at the nearest affected receiver boundary:

 

 

Day (7am – 10pm)

Evening (6pm-10pm)

Night (10pm – 7am)

Anzac Pde

63 LAeq (15 mins)

59 LAeq (15 mins)

46 LAeq (15 mins)

Darling St

53 LAeq (15 mins)

50 LAeq (15 mins)

44 LAeq (15 mins)

 

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

 

36.       A Demolition and Construction noise management plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and be implemented to minimise the impacts of construction noise to nearby premises. The necessary measures identified in the report must be implemented to comply with this report and address any concerns raised.  A copy of this plan is to be provided to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be kept onsite. Should noise complaints during demolition and construction be received, Council’s Authorised Officers may also issue directions to address any reasonable noise concerns. 

 

37.       The residential units are to achieve the following internal acoustic amenity criteria:

 

a)                     In naturally ventilated residential units; the repeatable maximum LAeq (1hour should not exceed:

 

§   35 dB(A) between 10.00 PM and 7.00 AM in sleeping areas when the windows are closed;

§   45 dB(A) in sleeping areas when windows are open;

§   45 dB(A) in living areas (24 hours) when the windows are closed, and

§   55 dB(A) in living areas when the windows are open

b)         In residential units provided with mechanical ventilation, air conditioning or other complying means of ventilation, when doors and windows are shut, the repeatable maximum LAeq (1hour) should not exceed:

§   38 dB(A) between 10.00 PM and 7.00 AM in sleeping areas;

§   46 dB(A) in living areas (24 hours).

 

Details of compliance with the relevant criteria is to be included in the Construction Certificate application and written confirmation of compliance is to be provided to the Council and the Certifying Authority, by the Acoustic consultant, prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

Proposed measures, which will alter the appearance of the building from the streetscape, may require the prior development consent from the Council. 

 

38.       A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and conditions of Council’s development consent.

 

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

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

·        has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

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

 

45.       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.

 

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

 

46.       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 located upon:

 

§ All of the premises adjoining the subject site, including 4-10 Darling Street and 212 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

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

 

47.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises and the report is to detail any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

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

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

48.       Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which states that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

49.       The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

50.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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:

 

51.       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.

 

52.       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.

 

53.       The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by 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 details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

54.       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 supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling 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 and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

58.       Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

59.       All building, demolition and associated site 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.

 

60.       The use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum), Monday to Friday inclusive and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

61.       Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

62.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics/vibration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council upon commencement of works, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development complies with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority and relevant conditions of approval.  In support of the above it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

Should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

63.       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.

 

64.       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.

 

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

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

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

 

67.       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.

 

68.       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”.

 

69.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

·        Covering of stockpiles 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 stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

71.       Public safety must be maintained at all times and 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      the slope of the land

·      site access points and access control measures

·      location and type of all sediment and erosion control measures

·      location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·      material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·      location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·      proposed disposal of site water

·      location of building operations and equipment

·      proposed re-vegetation details

 

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

 

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

 

74.       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.

 

75.       A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·          any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·          any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

Details of the proposed fences or hoardings 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

78.       Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the building in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards.  Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certification.

 

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

 

79.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

80.       The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $5000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

83.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to carry out civil works along both the Anzac Parade & Darling Street frontages which shall include:

 

a)         Construction of a heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance/exit point to the site.

 

b)         Removing the redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks and reinstating the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)         Reconstructing kerb and gutter for the full site frontages except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit point.

 

d)         Carrying out minimum 2 metre wide, full depth road construction in front of the reconstructed kerb and gutter along the full site frontages.

 

e)         Reconstructing the existing Council footpath along both site frontages in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Kensington.

 

Note:    This includes construction of an elevated footpath platform, access stairs and ramps along the Anzac Parade site frontage, removal of the existing street tree planting (as required) and the replacement with more suitable species as well as any street furniture required (tree grates, seats, bins etc).

 

84.       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, 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.

 

85.       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.

 

86.       The proposed elevated footpath located along the Anzac Parade site frontage shall be set back from the existing kerb line in Anzac Parade a minimum of 3.0 metres, with a minimum 2.5 metres being unimpeded for pedestrian use. The plans submitted for the construction certification shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

87.       Prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, a positive covenant and restriction under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be registered on the title of the subject property, which provides for:-

 

(i)         The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to clean, maintain, renew and repair the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway along the Anzac Parade site frontage, with all works being undertaken to the satisfaction of Council;

 

(ii)        The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to keep a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway along the Anzac Parade site frontage. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $10,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount, which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

      NOTES:

 

a.         The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the elevated platform, stairs and ramps located on the public footway along the Anzac Parade.

 

b.         The policy must name the Council as the owner and the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not change the insurance without first giving the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

 

c.         The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to the Council.

 

(iii)     The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to pay Council compensation (at an appropriate rate determined by Council) for the use of the public footway prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(iv)     No structures to be erected, nor goods to be stored, nor any work carried out in, on or over the public footway other than those approved by Council and the RTA.

 

(v)      The positive covenant and restriction shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

(vi)     The proposed wording for the positive covenant shall be prepared by suitably qualified legal advisers and shall be to the satisfaction of Council. All costs associated with creating, reviewing and registering the 88E instrument shall be met by the applicant.

 

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

 

89.       The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

90.       The driveway and carpark ramps grades are to comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

91.       The residential parking spaces on Basement 1 Level shall be separated from the commercial, residential and visitor parking spaces on the Ground Floor Level via a security roller shutter or similar between the two floors. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

92.       The commercial and visitor parking spaces on the ground floor level are to be clearly marked and signposted. Retractable bollards (or similar) shall be provided in the residential parking spaces located on the ground floor level.

 

93.       The aisle widths, internal circulation, ramp widths and grades of the carpark are to generally conform to the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) guidelines, Australian Standard AS 2980.1 –1993 and Council’s Development Control Plan - Parking. Details of compliance are to be shown on the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certificate, and are required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

94.       The applicant shall install a suitable traffic control system to be used for vehicles entering/exiting the proposed ramp linking the Basement 1 Level carpark with the Ground Floor carpark. The traffic control system shall be suitably designed to minimise the potential for vehicular conflict along the ramp. The applicant shall submit full design and location details with the construction certificate application for approval by the certifying authority.

 

95.       A “STOP” sign shall be installed at the vehicular exit point to require exiting vehicles to stop at the building line.

 

96.       The applicant shall meet the full cost for new street signage along the full site frontage in Anzac Parade and Darling Street as required by the RTA and the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

97.       A work zone is to be provided in Darling Street for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘work zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

It is noted that Council may remove the work zone should it be determined that the zone is being misused.

 

98.       All costs associated with the proposed development (including traffic management measures) shall be borne by the developer.

 

99.       All works on Anzac Parade (including construction of new driveways and removal of redundant driveways) shall be designed and constructed (including traffic control during construction) in accordance with the Australian Standards, Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice and RTA requirements (for details phone RTA Project Services Manager on 02 8814 2144). Except for driveways, detailed design plans shall be submitted to and approved by the RTA before any road works commence. A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may need to be lodged before RTA’s approval issued.

 

100.     To promote the efficient operation of the classified road network, no vehicles associated with the development shall park or stand on Anzac Parade during the construction of the development.

 

101.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit to the certifying authority for approval and have approved, full operational details of the car stackers. This information shall include (but not be limited to) the following:

 

·      Manufacturer specifications (including dimensions) and instructions for operation

·      Details of manual operation in the event of power/mechanical failure

 

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

 

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

 

·    Darling Street Frontage – 3.0% above the existing top of kerb levels along the full Darling Street site frontage.

 

·    Anzac Parade Frontage –match the proposed elevated section of footpath along the Anzac Parade site frontage. Note: The level of the elevated footpath shall be determined from the required floor levels specified in the amended flood study submitted in accordance with deferred commencement condition 6.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0924.

 

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

 

104.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services  have been issued at a prescribed fee of $3080 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

105.     The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access. 

 

106.     The visitor spaces and loading bays are to be readily accessible at all times.  This may be achieved by the installation of a suitable intercom system adjacent to the carpark entry.

 

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

 

107.     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.

 

108.     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.

 

109.     The applicant shall liaise with the relevant public utility service authorities regarding the proposed elevated section of public footpath to ensure that adequate access is provided to any services located under/near the elevated footpath.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements in relation to the proposed development (including the elevated section of footpath) have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

110.     Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

111.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

 

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

 

112.     All habitable and storage areas (excluding those within the basement carpark) shall be located at or above the levels specified in the amended flood study submitted in accordance with deferred commencement condition 6, and all access points/openings to the basement carpark shall be suitable protected from flooding up to these same levels. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this condition.

 

113.     All doors, walls and windows on the ground floor level along both the Anzac Parade and Darling Street site frontage shall be designed to structurally withstand hydrostatic pressure/stormwater inundation from flood water during the probable maximum flood event as defined in the Floodplain Management Manual (New South Wales Government, January 2001). Structural Engineering certification confirming that this condition has been complied with shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

114.     All components of the fire stairs along the Darling Street site frontage that are located below the required floor levels (as determined in the flood study submitted in accordance with deferred commencement condition 6) shall be constructed from material that will not be adversely affected by flooding. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

116.     On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

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

 

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

 

117.     All stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to Council’s underground drainage system in Anzac Parade via a new double grated gully pit (constructed by Council or a Council approved contractor at the applicant’s expense). Details of the proposed gully pit shall be submitted to Council and the RTA for approval and approved prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

Note:  Sketch details of a standard double grated gully pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer (9399 0919)

 

118.     The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

119.     All stormwater currently draining to the subject site shall be collected and discharged through the site stormwater system.

 

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

 

Notes:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

125.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

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

 

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

 

127.     A reflux valve shall be provide over the pipe draining from the site into the sediment/silt arrestor pit to prevent stormwater from Council’s underground drainage system draining back into the subject development site.

 

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

 

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

 

130.     Three covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

131.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

h)           The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

i)            Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

j)           Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

k)          The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

l)            The orifice size(s) (if applicable); and

m)          Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

132.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

133.     As the proposed basement carpark will intersect the water table, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofed has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be charged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

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

 

134.     The applicant shall obtain a Water License from the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. The applicant is advised to contact Warren Miller on 9895 7784 regarding this matter.

 

135.     The recommendations made in the Hydro Geotechnical report prepared by D. F. Dickson and Associates Pty Ltd dated 10 March 2003 and any subsequent excavation and dewatering details approved by Council in accordance with deferred commencement condition 5, shall be adopted. The Construction Certificate plans shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

136.     A dilapidation survey of the surrounding properties shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the certifying authority and Council (if Council is not the principal certifying authority) prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

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

 

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

 

138.     Waste management within the development site, (including sizing and location of bin storage areas and compactor units), shall be carried out in strict compliance with the details and recommendations of the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application, (i.e. Appendix E – Waste Management Report prepared by  J D MacDonald and dated June 2003). The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all elements of the subject Waste Management Plan prior to the issuing of a construction certificate

 

139.     The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

140.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council for approval, and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste, a detailed design and specification for the proposed garbage collection chute/s.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

g.   The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 3 x 100 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

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

 

i.    The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

143.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade and Darling Street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Kensington Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins, planter boxes and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

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

 

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

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee of $10,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Anzac Parade and Darling Street site frontages.

 

144.     To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas within the site as well as to the planter boxes proposed for Council’s nature strip along Anzac Parade. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

147.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $20,315.50 + GST to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to remove the three (3) x Platanus x hybrida (Plane Trees) and two (2) x Hibiscus tileaceus (Linden Tree) street trees ($1,120.00 + GST), and

 

b.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install thirteen (13) x 45 litre street trees at the completion of all works ($1,885.00 + GST), and

 

c.         To compensate Council for the loss of amenity caused by the removal of the street trees ($17,010.00).

 

The contribution shall be paid into Fee Code 525 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

148.     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 of the subject tree.

 

149.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee for the amount of  $10,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISINGS

 

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

 

A2.  The applicant is advised that this consent does not approve any footpath seating areas. Any applications for footpath seating shall be submitted to Council for approval as a separate development application.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A. General Terms of Approval - Water Licence

B. A4 Reductions

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report  64/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

53 Helena Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D1219/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development No 1219/02 for the addition of a partial third storey to residential flat building to provide 2 additional units (to make a total of 10 units) and improvements to existing landscaping and car parking provisions for Council’s consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The recommendation is that the original determination be changed and that the application as amended be approved, subject to conditions of consent.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 8 August, 2003

2. A4 Configuration plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

8 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D1219/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Addition of a partial third storey to residential flat building to provide 2 additional units (to make a total of 10 units) and improvements to existing landscaping and carparking provision

PROPERTY:

 53 Helena Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 D. Lasky

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Greenwood and Backes.

 

An application under Section 82A has been lodged with Council seeking reconsideration of the original determination refusing the application. Amendments have been made to the plans in response to the reasons for refusal, reducing the number of units proposed and reducing the height, bulk and scale of the structure accordingly. Improvements to landscaping, removal of upper level balconies and improvement to the layout of existing parking have also been proposed to improve amenity and lessen impacts on surrounding properties.

 

It is recommended that the original determination be changed and that the application as amended be approved, subject to conditions of consent.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to remove the roof structure of the existing building, allowing for construction of an additional part level (3rd storey) on the existing structure. The additional level will provide for 2 x 2 bedroom units (one with study). The completed building will comprise 5 x 2 bedroom units, 1 x 2 bedroom plus study and 4 large one bedroom plus study units (10 units in total) on the site at 53 Helena Street, Randwick.

 

The applicant also proposes external improvements to the existing structure including new balconies at the southeastern corner of the existing ground and first floor levels (4 balconies) with lightweight balustrading, rendering and painting of the existing building to match the proposed third level. New balconies with rendered balustrading are proposed to the northern elevation of the building (facing Helena Street) at all levels. Replacement of all existing timber window frames with aluminium framing will also be undertaken to improve the external appearance of the building.

 

Internal refurbishment and upgrading of the existing units and services is proposed to match the quality of the new units. An additional two carparking spaces will be provided to the rear of the site in an enclosed garage (off East Lane). Landscaping of the building surrounds, including a new roof terrace with perimeter planter boxes over the garage structure at the rear of the site is also proposed.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of Helena Street one allotment to the west of Canberra Street in Randwick. The site is a corner allotment, having a long frontage of 57.495m to Canberra Lane and a frontage to Helena Street of 12.065m. The rear boundary of the site adjoins East Lane and measures 12.02 metres. The western side boundary adjoins a four storey residential flat building and measures 57.66 metres. The total site area is 692.9m2. The site is currently occupied by a two-three storey residential flat building that includes five garages integrated into the lower level of the building and three parking spaces within a freestanding garage structure with access from Canberra Lane. The existing building contains 8 units, 4 x 3 bedroom units and 4 x 1 bedroom plus study units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Development in the locality is comprised of a variety of residential uses. To the east of the site along Canberra Street are 1-2 storey detached dwelling houses. Across Canberra Lane directly opposite the site to the east is a recently constructed 2 storey townhouse development. Adjacent to the site to the west is a four storey residential flat building and across Helena Street to the north are two four storey residential flat buildings. The residential flat buildings in the area predate the 2(a) zoning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A development application for refurbishment of the existing building including construction of a third storey comprising three x 2 bedroom units was refused on the 21 March 2003 based on 11 reasons for refusal. The reasons for refusal included visual and amenity impacts on surrounding properties, lack of on-site parking for increased density proposed, insufficient landscaping and inconsistency with the character objectives of the 2A zone.

 

The applicant has requested a review of this determination and lodged this request on 13 June 2003.

 

The flats were constructed under approval number 67/00128/BZ. The site has been used as flats since the 1967 consent, which predates Randwick LEP 98 and the current 2(a) zoning of the site.

 

“Existing-use rights” are provided for under s108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The effect of s108 is largely to protect existing non-conforming uses. Clause 43 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 allows for extension and alteration of buildings containing existing uses, with Council’s consent.

 

In response to the reasons for refusal, the request for a review includes amended plans which reduce the number of additional units to 2 x 2 bedroom units and incorporate improvements to communal open space and increase the width of existing freestanding garages at ground level.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

 

The following submissions were received objecting to the application:

 

1.   R and R. House, 34 Canberra Street, Randwick

 

§ Existing use rights should model development on 2(b) not 2(c) zone.

§ Out of scale and character with the area.

§ FSR exceeds the maximum FSR for the 2(c) zone generally and the FSR for sites under 700m2 in the 2(c) zone. Should conform to 2(b) controls.

§ Car parking and traffic generation, no traffic report to support non-compliance with Parking DCP.

§ Overlooking.

§ Lack of articulation and modulation of building form.

§ Height is excessive.

§ Lack of landscaping, does not comply with LEP provisions.

§ SEE fails to address multi-unit housing DCP and LEP and doesn’t comply with the controls set by these documents.

 

2.   A. Morris, 3/49-51 Helena Street, Randwick

 

§ Loss of morning light.

§ Loss of privacy to living areas.

§ Increased traffic and parking congestion.

 

3.   A. Lawrence, 7/49-51 Helena Street, Randwick

 

§ Overshadowing due to additional storey.

§ Increased traffic and parking congestion.

§ Proposal will result in additional noise impacts.

 

4.   Owners Corporation SP 9662 (49-51 Helena Street, Randwick)

 

§ Overshadowing due to additional storey.

§ Increased traffic and parking congestion.

§ Proposal will result in additional noise impacts.

 

5.   S & S Guest, 36 Canberra Street, Randwick

 

§ Existing use rights should indicate which zones controls the applicant intends to comply with.

§ Out of scale and character with the surrounding context.

§ FSR exceeds the maximum FSR for the 2(c) zone generally and the FSR for sites under 700m2 in the 2(c) zone. This is unsupportable.

§ Lack of visitor parking will pressure existing on-street parking. Non-compliance with DCP – Parking.

§ Overdevelopment, excessive in scale.

§ Overlooking.

§ Inadequate landscaping.

§ Non-compliance with setbacks under Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

§ Building is ugly and will be a “featureless mass”.

 

Comment: The proposed improvements to the external treatment of the building including incorporation of architectural features such as balconies will enhance the appearance of the building.

 

6.   A.J Giuffre, 28 Canberra Street, Randwick

 

§ Building is illegal in 2(A) zone, as are any modifications to the existing building.

§ Overlooking.

§ Increased congestion in Canberra Lane and parking impacts, existing garage structures are too narrow.

§ Overshadowing.

§ No area for clotheslines, garbage bin storage nor communal recreational space.

 

Comment: An area of communal open space has been shown in the amended plans, above the garage structure to the rear of the site. Provision of clothes drying facilities and garbage storage areas have been included in the conditions of consent (see Conditions 3 and 14).

 

7.   O,C,K and A. Pereira, 26 Canberra Street, Randwick

 

§ Overshadowing.

§ Parking.

§ Overlooking due to addition of balconies.

§ Excessive FSR.

§ Incompatible with zoning and surrounding density.

§ No objection to beautification works to exterior of building.

 

8.   J & R Cox Planning on behalf of owners at 30 and 32 Canberra Street, Randwick

 

§ Request legal opinion on “existing use rights”

§ Overshadowing

§ Excessive height

§ Inadequate landscaping

§ Gross floor area is excessive and exceeds the permitted 2(a) and 2(b) zone controls

§ Inadequate parking

§ Will set a dangerous precedent

§ Cited Randwick –v- Bowie Constructions where the Court approved 0.98:1 as the application involved insignificant physical change

§ An urgent review of Council’s planning controls is required in light of this and the Pine Street example.

 

As many of the objections raise similar issues these have been considered below:

 

Existing Use Rights

As noted above in this report, existing use rights afford protection to sites where non-conforming uses exist. Council cannot apply controls where they would derogate from the existing use. Council is not under any obligation to assess the application against the controls for the 2(a) zone, nor the 2(b) or 2(c) zones and cannot legally enforce compliance as these controls do not apply where existing use rights are in force. However, the consent authority may use these controls as guidelines in the context of a merit assessment.

 

Overshadowing

Overshadowing has been lessened through the changes to the upper storey of the building. Despite increases to shadows cast on properties to the west and east during midwinter mornings and afternoons, the proposal will maintain 3 hours of solar access to all properties and north facing windows as per the controls in the DCP. See discussion under section 9 of this report.

 

Overlooking

Balconies have been limited to lower levels of the building to minimise overlooking of properties that face Canberra Street. Balustrading to these 600mm wide balconies obscures the lower portion of the glazed door and results in a visible area of glass that is similar to the existing windows. This treatment reduces the perception of increased overlooking and the limited width of balconies ensures that residents of the building cannot sit on the balconies and that large gatherings are not possible on the balconies. See discussion under section 9 of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Traffic and Parking

Traffic & Parking has been considered under section 9 of this report. The proposal provides a car space for each unit. Council’s DCP would require 4 visitor spaces which haven’t been provided. The proposal provides one space per dwelling. This maintains the existing parking/dwelling ratio and will improve manouevering and safety.

 

Landscaping

The existing building precludes provision of extensive landscaped areas. The improvements to landscaping proposed are considered adequate given the constraints of the site and will make a positive contribution to the appearance of the building from the street and the amenity of residents. The proposed landscaping is an improvement on the existing situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A petition containing 28 signatures (including some residents who made submissions independently) was also submitted in response to the notification. The petition didn’t raise any new issues but made the comment that “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

 

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:-

 

7.1       Director of Assets and Infrastructure

 

The Director of Assets and Infrastructure provided the following comments in relation to the original application:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building, including construction of an additional level providing another 2x2 br units & 2x1 br units to the existing 4x2 br units & 4x1 br units as well as 2 additional garages which front East Lane.

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

The description of the development is incorrect, the new upper level will have 2 x 2br units. Conditions of consent were proposed by AIS, and are included in the recommendation (see Conditions 41-50).

 

The amendments made changes to the parking arrangements on the site. The AIS have provided appropriate conditions in relation to these changes.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has an area of less than 4,000m2 and therefore a master plan is not required under clause 40A of the LEP98.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or conditions of Development Consent. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

Subclause 3A of Section 82A of the Act allows Council to consider revised plans with a request for a review subject to the plans showing a development that is substantially the same as that originally considered.

 

The amended plans indicate a development that is substantially the same as that proposed in the original submission.

 

(b)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (multi-unit housing) is generally prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the existing building on the site has been used continuously as a residential flat building by virtue of a lawful consent which predates the current planning controls (which now prohibits such a use). The property therefore enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”.

 

Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. The protection extends to allowing the rebuilding, alteration or extension of a structure housing a non-conforming use (with Council’s consent). Section 108(3) also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate (detract from) the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

The relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

(a)   to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

(c)   to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi‑detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

 

Although the proposed development will enlarge an existing building which is larger than residential uses to the east of the subject site (1 & 2 storey dwellings), there are several larger residential flat building at the eastern end of Helena Street (adjacent and opposite the subject site). The immediate context has a “mixed character”. The amendments made to the proposal reduce the length of the additional storey by approximately 13 metres so that the building follows the sloping topography along Canberra Lane more closely. The existing building ranges from 2-3 storeys in height. The proposal will result in a staggered building form that is three storeys to the front (Helena Street) as well as three storeys to the rear (no change). For a small section in the middle of the proposal the height will increase to 3.5 storeys, however this is not considered to result in significant impacts warranting refusal or further reduction of the proposal.

 

The rendering of the existing building and proposed landscaping works to the perimeter of the site will be beneficial to the appearance of the site and character of the area. The incorporation of balconies and staggering of the built form will bring greater variety and architectural interest to the bland design of the existing building. These improvements will contribute to the character of the area, despite the building being larger than dwellings in the vicinity.

 

The proposal represents an increase in the density on the site, introducing an additional 2 x 2 bedroom units. The third storey adds approximately 168m2 of gross floor area to the site. The overall FSR after construction of the additional storey is approximately 1:1 (708m2). A dwelling on a site of this size in the 2(a) zone would be required to have a floor space ratio of 0.5:1. Although the FSR proposed is more than is allowed under Council’s current controls and is greater than surrounding dwelling houses it is commensurate with the adjoining residential flat building at 55 Helena Street and residential flat buildings across Helena Street to the north. The proposed third storey has been reduced in size to minimise impacts on surrounding properties and the character of the area. The height of the proposal to the rear has been reduced, lessening the impact of the additional FSR on the streetscape and on smaller scale properties to the east (which front Canberra Lane).

 

The proposal is considered a reasonable extension of the existing building that achieves a building bulk to the front of the site that is similar to the existing bulk at the rear of the site. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the objectives of the 2(a) zone.

 

The following clauses of the RLEP have been considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscaped Area

Clause 31(1):

40% of site area (or 277.16sq.m)

 

23% or 161sqm

 

 

No

 

32 – FSR

0.5:1 or 346.45 sq.m

1:1 or 708sq.m

No

33 - Building Height

Clause 33(2):

9.5m max. overall

 

Clause 33(4):

7m max. wall height

 

9.7-11.4m

 

 

8-10m

 

No

 

 

No

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item or within conservation area.

No heritage items nearby the subject site. Not in a conservation area.

N/A

 

Non-compliances with statutory standards cannot derogate (detract from) the protection afforded by existing use rights under s108(3) of the Act. An objection under SEPP No. 1 in support of variance from the FSR, height and landscaping standards is not required in this instance. The relevant clauses of the RLEP have been discussed under Section 9 of this report.

 

(c)   State Environmental Planning Policy 10 – (Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation)

 

Clause 7(2) requires Council consent for strata subdivision and alterations and additions to residential flat buildings classed as “low-rental residential buildings” under clause 6 of the SEPP. Clause 6(2)(c) excludes buildings that have been approved for strata subdivision from the provisions of the SEPP. Two applications for strata subdivision, one in 1998 and one in 2000 have been approved, therefore the provisions of the SEPP do not apply to this site.

 

(d)   State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. Due to the previous use of the site for residential purposes, it is considered that there is little likelihood for contamination and the site is suitable for the residential use proposed.

 

(e)   State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

 

Clause 4(b) of the SEPP states that:

 

4)         This Policy applies to development being:

(b)     the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building,

 

The refurbishment of the existing building and addition of units requires consideration under SEPP 65 as the building will be three to storeys tall and contain more than four units. No discussion of SEPP 65 or of the achievement of the design quality principles has been submitted with the application. The original application was determined prior to Council’s Urban Design Review Panel being convened. While the provisions of the SEPP cannot detract from the provisions of existing use rights, it is considered that any redevelopment of the site should achieve consistency with the design quality principles embodied in SEPP 65.

 

The renovations and external improvements to the building will improve its aesthetic appeal and update its appearance and amenity for residents of the building. The incorporation of balconies, particularly to the northern side of the building will improve solar access and amenity to the units in addition to providing greater articulation to the façade. The scale and bulk of the proposal and the proposed density is considered appropriate in the context of the street and surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding properties or the street. A new communal landscaped area is proposed on top of the existing freestanding garages at the rear of the site. This is considered to be an appropriate response for a site with limited opportunities for at grade landscaping and will improve amenity for residents without impacting on the amenity of surrounding properties (as an elevated roof terrace may).

 

The proposal is considered to improve surveillance through the provision of balconies overlooking Helena Street. The pedestrian entry to the building will also be upgraded, consistent with the objectives of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development.

 

§  DCP – Parking 1998

§  Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP does not apply to the proposal (which is multi-unit housing). The Multi-Unit Housing DCP only applies to development within the 2(b) and 2(c) zone and therefore is not applicable to the subject site, which is zoned 2(a).

 

a.         Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (4 x 1.0 = 4.0 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (6 x 1.2 = 7.2spaces)

 

1 space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (2.5 spaces required)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 14 SPACES

 

As per DCP.

 

 

 

 

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

(4 bike spaces)

 

 

 

4 spaces

 

 

 

 

6 spaces

 

 

 

0 spaces

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

 

 

 

Not indicated.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Opportunities exist to provide within garages specific indication not required development of the scale proposed.

 

b.         Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional two (2) dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $5,596.20. This amount must be paid prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate (see Condition 12).

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

9.1       Reasons for review

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons for requesting the review:-

 

The new level has been scaled down from three units to two units. This has resulted in a significant reduction of “bulk and scale”, particularly at the rear of the property which seemed to be giving Council most concern. We respectfully submit that the frontage to the building in Helena Street is compatible in appearance, bulk and scale to that of the surrounding area and our proposed development will go a long way to upgrading the streetscape.

 

The reduction in the number of units has resulted in a more staggered building form that responds to the topography and minimises the height of the building, particularly as viewed from properties which front Canberra Street. The previous proposal was generally four storeys in height and did not have a modulated roof form. The three storeys proposed to Helena Street are in keeping with surrounding residential flat buildings. Dwelling houses and townhouse developments in the area are up to two storeys in height. The building is one storey taller (3 storeys). This is not considered to have a significant impacts on the built form or character of the area.

 

We point out that each unit has been allotted a lock-up garage. As there are only two additional garage spaces, we respectfully submit that this will not have any significant adverse impact on traffic and parking.

 

The proposal does not provide any visitor parking (2.5 spaces required) and is 1 space short of the parking requirement for the number of 2 bedroom dwellings proposed. Notwithstanding these ‘non-compliances’ (compliance is not required under existing use rights provisions), the proposal provides one carparking space per dwelling, which is considered to be adequate. Dwellings addressing Canberra Street have garages to Canberra Lane and adequate off-street carparking. The site is located close to bus routes on Canberra Street, further reducing any impacts of the reduced parking provision. The proposal includes widening the existing freestanding garages to the rear of the site to improve manoeuvring. These improvements will assist in alleviating any traffic congestion caused by vehicles waiting for cars to manoeuvre into the parking spaces on the site. The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to carparking.

 

Our shadow diagrams previously submitted have indicated that there is minimal “overshadowing” in respect of sunlight etc.

 

The overshadowing impact of the proposal has been greatly reduced by the amendments. The orientation of the site results in shadows cast that moving significantly throughout the day. Shadowing impacts to properties facing Canberra Street will not increase significantly. Additional shadows will cast on these properties at 3pm midwinter. Despite the increase, 3 hours of solar access will remain to the rear yards of these properties midwinter. These properties have garages along their rear boundaries and most of the shadow cast by 53 Helena Street currently falls on these structures. The proposal will increase shadowing to some top floor windows at 49-51 Helena Street during midwinter mornings but will not result in additional impacts at other times of day and will maintain the required 3 hours minimum midwinter to north facing windows of adjoining properties.

 

With regard to the concerns of neighbours, “particularly along the narrow laneway adjacent to the property”, we believe that the significant setback at the end of the building line of the additional level, together with the elimination of the Juliet balconies on the third level, address significantly the “overlooking” aspects and the “overbearing/ overshadowing” aspects of those concerns.

 

The balconies proposed to units 2,3,6 and 7 on the eastern elevation of the building at ground and first floor level are 600mm in depth and are not considered to significantly increase the potential for overlooking of properties in Canberra Street nor the impression of being overlooked when viewing the building from houses in Canberra Street. The balconies will be attached where windows currently exist (the windows will be enlarged to form doors) and the height of balustrading will result in an exposed ‘window area’ of a similar size to existing windows and giving a similar impression when viewed from surrounding properties. The additional level will not incorporate balconies to the eastern elevation. The windows from this level comprise living and dining room windows. The windows to Unit 10 and the northern end of Unit 9 are not considered to result in significant overlooking impacts due to the sloped topography. The window to the living room of Unit 9 is elevated and does have the potential to overlook adjoining properties. Condition 2 requires that this window be an operable highlight window only, as this room will also receive natural light from the balcony proposed to the rear of the unit.

 

This balcony is setback 4.0 metres from the eastern side boundary and is contained within the roofline. This balcony will not result in significant visual privacy impacts, despite its elevation due to the setback proposed and separation afforded by Canberra Lane.

 

The communal terrace on top of the garage structures to the rear of the site will not result in visual privacy impacts due to the lower ground level at this point, the perimeter planter boxes and the separation provided by Canberra Lane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


We believe that the scope of the development provides an ideal opportunity to upgrade what is presently an old and tired building. We believe that the current design and scope of works can only serve to increase the visual amenity of the property and the area.

 

The proposed rendering of the building, additional architectural details such as balconies, enlarged and additional garages, landscaping and communal terrace will improve the amenity of the existing building and surrounding area. The amendments made to the built form have reduced impacts on surrounding properties.

 

We believe that the setback of the top floor and the removal of the Juliet balconies will alleviate the concerns of the Canberra Street residents of any loss of privacy to their rear yards. We believe that the steps we have taken to minimise the impact are significant.

 

The removal of balconies and the reduction of the top floor to provide 2 rather than 3 units has reduced visual privacy impacts. Towards the rear, where the third floor becomes 3.5 stories, a highlight window should be provided to ensure that visual privacy impacts are minimised. The balcony, which faces south (over East Lane) and is contained within the roof structure will not result in significant visual privacy impacts.

 

Our amended plans provide for a deck to be constructed over the existing detached block of three garages and two new garages. This deck will be surrounded by a planter box to give privacy both to the residents of the property and to the neighbours and will provide significant and meaningful communal recreational and general amenity areas. Whilst each of the apartments has an internal laundry, there will also be provision for external clothes drying and proper garbage storage areas will be allowed for.

 

No objection is raised to the proposed communal deck. Conditions of consent requiring the provision of external clothes drying facilities and adequate garbage storage have been included in the consent (see Conditions 3 and 14).

 

We respectfully submit that the proposed landscaping is significant in nature and is certainly a significant improvement on what currently exists.

 

The proposed landscaping improvements to the property are supported and will make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site from the street.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed renovation and extension of the existing non-conforming residential flat building on the site is permissible, and the proposal has been amended to reduce its impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Although provisions of State Environmental Planning Policies, the RLEP and Council’s policy documents cannot derogate from the protection of existing use rights, a merits based assessment has been made of the proposal. The development is consistent with the scale of larger buildings in the locality and the ‘mixed’ character of existing development. The development will not result in the reduction of residential amenity, or significant carparking impacts or visual bulk and scale impacts. The works will result in an improved presentation of the building in the streetscape and landscaping. The increase in height and density can be accommodated on the site.

 

The site presents an opportunity for redevelopment under “existing-use rights” provisions, and the proposed development is consistent with the intentions of the zone. The proposal as amended has addressed the original reasons for refusal and as such it is recommended that Council change its determination of the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No. 1219/2003 dated 21 March 2003 for external and internal refurbishment of existing residential flat building including construction of an additional storey comprising 3 x 2 bedroom units and associated garaging be rescinded:

 

AND

 

B.         THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1219/2002 for Addition of a partial third storey to residential flat building to provide 2 additional units (to make a total of 10 units) and improvements to existing landscaping and carparking provision at 53 Helena Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Issue B of DA1/6-DA3/6, DA5/6 and DA 6/6, project number 02:270 and stamped received by Council on 12 June, 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 sill height of the following window is to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.7m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below the specified level:

·        East facing window from living room of Unit 9

 

Details are to be included in the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.         External clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

External clothes drying facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

4.         Upon completion of the development and prior to the issuing of the strata subdivision, documentary evidence is to be submitted to the Council by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the owner of the premises, to the satisfaction of Council) which confirms that the development has been carried out in accordance with the relevant development consent conditions.

 

Details of critical phase inspections carried out by or on behalf of the principal certifying authority together with any certification relied upon and the occupation certificate for the building must also be provided to Council prior to approval of the strata subdivision plans.

 

5.         The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency:

 

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

 

7.         External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

8.         Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

9.         The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

10.       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.

 

11.       Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

The following condition is applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

12.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $3,585.76

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $1,585.44

c)       Administration fee $425.00                                                         $   425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00. Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

 

a)       prior to the commencement of any works

b)       prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety.

 

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

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001; and

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

16.       The removal, cleaning and disposal of any lead-based paints must be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures, The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the requirements and guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

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

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

·        has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

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

 

25.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.       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.

 

29.       The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by 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 details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

30.       All building, demolition and associated site 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.       Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

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

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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.

 

35.       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, soil and debris at all times.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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”.

 

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.       Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

40.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         Construct a concrete vehicular crossing and layback opposite the proposed garages in East Lane (the rear lane).

 

b)         Construct kerb & gutter with associated roadworks along the East Lane frontage.

 

c)         Replace the existing concrete footpath along the Helena Street site frontage.

 

42.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

East Lane Frontage - 60mm above the edge of the asphalt bitumen road, in East Lane, opposite the proposed garage entrances.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

45.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the edge of roadway in East Lane must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

46.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $88.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

48.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report  65/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

22a Pauling Ave, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0765/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development No 765/02 for amendments to existing consent to increase height of side walls to garage, make changes to roof structure and minor changes to internal layout of dwelling for Council’s consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The recommendation is that amendments ‘A’ and ‘B’ to DA 765/02 be approved, subject to conditions.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 5 August, 2003.

2. A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

5 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0765/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Amendments to existing consent to increase height of side walls to garage, make changes to roof structure and minor changes to internal layout of dwelling.

PROPERTY:

 22A Pauling Avenue, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 M & D Basile

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council for determination as a previous section 82A review of a condition relating to the garage structure was considered by Council’s Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting of 11 February 2003.

 

Two section 96 applications have been lodged with Council. The first (DA 765/02 ‘A’) seeks to increase the height of the solid walls to the garage. The second (DA 765/02 ‘B’) includes changes to the roof design, requiring relocation of windows in the rear and front elevation and some changes to the internal configuration of the proposal.

 

It is recommended that amendments ‘A’ and ‘B’ to DA 765/02 be approved, subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant wishes to amend the existing consent to make alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construct a new garage. Two section 96 applications have been lodged to modify the consent.

 

Application ‘A’ proposes raising the level of the masonry in the side walls of the garage to a maximum height of 1.32 metres (at the street frontage) to accommodate the slope of the land (the walls will be 1.0m at the back of the garage). The application also proposes that the southern side wall of the garage be constructed of solid masonry for 2.5m of its length at the eastern (rear) end. Clarification of the composition of the northern garage wall is also provided showing glazing above low masonry walls and an entry door at the northwestern corner as per the original DA plans.

 

The applicant has verbally advised that the plans submitted with application ‘A’ include construction of a hot tub to the rear of the property. This item has not been highlighted on the plans and was not noted in the description of the proposed amendments lodged with the application. The hot tub was shown in the original DA plans but was deleted from the plans prior to approval. The application was not notified as including the hot tub due to the lack of detail included on the plans and description and as such this element has not been considered as part of this application.

 

Application ‘B’ seeks to modify the proposed roof structure at the front and rear of the property. The maximum ridge height of the proposal will be RL 30.15 (as was previously approved). Two skylights and internal changes to change the location of the laundry are also proposed.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The premises are within a residential locality which contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings. The subject property is on the eastern side of Pauling Avenue and forms the southern half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. To the south of the site is an 3.66m wide drainage and access reserve running east-west. Further to the south is 26 Pauling Avenue, a single storey brick dwelling.

 

The street passes through a deep gully and the properties along each side, including the subject site, slope steeply up to the rear to meet ridgelines along Ritchard Avenue and Raleigh Street. Houses on the surrounding properties in Ritchard Avenue and Raleigh Street are sited at elevations well above the Pauling Avenue houses, and substantial vegetation exists on the slopes between, which enhances the separation provided by the topography.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

Development consent was granted on the 21st November 2002 for permission to carry out alterations and additions at ground and first floor levels of the existing dwelling, including enlarging the width of the existing carport by 1m and erecting a 2.1m high colourbond fence to the southern boundary adjoining a drainage reserve.

 

A Section 82A Review Application to modify Condition 4 of the consent was approved by the Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting on 11 February 2003. This allowed for the enclosure of the previously approved carport, but limited the height of masonry side walls to a maximum height of 1.0m with transparent safety glass above.

 

Application A was received by Council on 25 June 2003 which showed changes to the side walls of the garage structure and showed entry steps to the dwelling moved north and the door to the garage in the northern elevation moved east (towards the dwelling entry). The applicant lodged amended plans on 27 June 2003 which showed no change to the steps and door in the northern elevation left in its original location. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

Application B was received by Council on 23 July 2003. The two applications have been considered together for expediency.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Both applications have been notified to surrounding properties in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submission was received in relation to proposed Amendment ‘A’:

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.  J & D Crombie, 26 Pauling Avenue, Coogee

 

·     Supports door being moved to next to the house and steps moved to improve motorists vision.

 

This door (to the northern wall of the garage) was shown moved to the east in the original application for Amendment ‘A’. Amended plans were subsequently lodged that showed the door in the location previously approved by Council. As the door has been approved re-notification was not required and no objection is raised to retaining a door in the location shown, as per the current approval.

 

·          Changes to the side walls will be detrimental to pedestrian safety. Councillors have already recognised this through their resolution on February 11. Glazing should be a continuous panel and the windows shown in the plans are unacceptable.

 

Council imposed Condition 4 which required the side walls of the garage to be a maximum of 1.0 metres in height and there to be glazing above. The form of the glazing (ie: continuous or as window panes) was not clearly stated by the condition. A single brick pier is proposed to the glazed section of the garage wall. This is not considered to have a significant impact on the ability of a driver to see pedestrians or children playing in the adjoining drainage reserve.

 

·          The side walls of the carport have already been constructed and are one third higher than stated in Council’s resolution.

 

Council’s Manager Environmental Health and Building has made investigations into non-compliance with the consent. The outcome of these investigations is this application which seeks to amend the consent to ensure compliance is achieved.

 

·          Built structures seem to deviate from approved plans raising concern regarding other more significant/ potential breaches of consent and impacts on our property such as overshadowing.

 

Unauthorised works and failure to comply with Council’s conditions attract penalties under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation. Council is the certifying authority in this instance and will ensure compliance with all conditions prior to finalising building works.

 

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     Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Director, Environmental Health and Building has made the following comment in response to the skylight proposed in application 765/2002 ‘B’.

 

An examination of the plans has revealed that the skytube located in the hallway adjoining Bedroom 2, is less than 900mm from the northern side boundary. This means that the location of the skytube does not comply with Clause 3.7.1.10 and Figure 3.7.1.12 of the BCA Housing Provisions and should be deleted as it increases the risk of fire spread from the adjoining property.

 

An advising regarding BCA compliance has been included in the recommendation.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has an area of less than 4,000m2 there is no requirement for a master plan under RLEP 98.

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The applications have been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. There are no statutory standards within RLEP 95 that are applicable to the proposal.

 

(b)        SEPP 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.     Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan

b.    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Relevant sections of Council’s policy controls are considered in detail in Section 10.1, below.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”. The current application to modify the existing consent must be considered against the development as originally approved.

 

            The modifications proposed to the approved dwelling are considered to result in a development that is “substantially the same” as that originally approved, and therefore may be considered by Council under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

One submission was received in relation to Amendment ‘A’. This has been discussed under section 5.1 of this report.

 

No submissions were received in relation to Amendment ‘B’ of the consent.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

a.         Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

 

The proposed changes will not increase the floor area of the dwelling nor the maximum height proposed. The relevant sections of Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan have been considered below:

 

Height, Form and Materials

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Application ‘B’ proposes minor changes to the design of the roof at the front of the dwelling. These changes will not significantly affect the appearance of the dwelling and no objection is raised to the changes over the ground floor level. Two new skylights are proposed that do not meet the provisions of the BCA due to their proximity to the boundary.

 

To the rear of the dwelling, the applicant proposes to raise the roof over the approved first floor study to match the approved ridge line (RL 30.15). This change will not increase the roof height above the maximum already approved. The setback of the changes will ensure the modification will not have a significant impact in terms of the appearance of the dwelling and the integration of the additions with the adjoining semi at 22 Pauling Avenue (see photo of constructed changes below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The pair of semis at 22-22A Pauling Avenue are not separated by a straight party wall. The irregular layout of the dwellings results in the proposed changes to the roof being located on the northern (opposite side) of the semi, behind the predominant pitched form that rooves both dwellings. The proposed changes are not visually intrusive into the form of the existing semis.

 

Amendment ‘B’ also requests that the window to the study and bedroom 3 be moved slightly to the centre of the corresponding walls (west and east). An internal change to move the laundry and construct an ensuite in its place is also proposed. No objection is raised to these changes as they will not have a significant privacy impact nor impact on the appearance of the dwelling from the street.

 

Garages and Driveways

 

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

 

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

 

Amendment ‘A’ proposes to increase the height of the side walls as measured from natural ground level from a maximum of 1.0 metres (as limited by Condition 4 of the development consent) to 1.32 metres at the street alignment. The reason for the variation is stated in the application as being to maintain level sills to the glazed wall areas above as the site slopes in the location of the garage. The increase in the height of the side walls only occurs when the walls are measured from natural ground level. Council’s condition did not indicate where the maximum of 1.0 metre was to be measured from. The walls have been constructed 1.0 metre from floor level within the garage (where a driver would be positioned). The walls are considered to meet the intent of the condition, that a driver in a vehicle within the garage will be able to see over the side walls of the garage and as such Condition 4 may be deleted.

 

It is noted that the configuration of the side walls to the garage are shown differently on the plans lodged with Amendment ‘B’. The garage is to be constructed in accordance with Amendment ‘A’ and this is clarified by the wording of the recommendation.

 

b.            DCP - Parking

 

As noted above, the garage generally complies with the DCP Parking. The DCP does not specifically require side walls of garages to be a maximum height. Section 3.3.3.4 states:

 

“When siting driveways and garages, adequate measures should be taken to ensure pedestrian visibility. For example low fence heights, open design fences or splays…may be required.”

 

In this instance, the location of the garage, pedestrian visibility and safety has been carefully considered by the assessment officer and Council in its determination to limit the side walls to a maximum height of 1m. The proposal will not result in loss of visibility as the walls are 1.0m high from the internal floor level of the garage.

 

No objection is raised in respect of the bricking up of the eastern end of the wall, as this area is generally outside the driver’s line of vision. Given that the plans associated with the section 96 application relate to the amended design of the garage Condition 4 becomes redundant and should be deleted.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

Application 765/2002 ‘A’

 

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

 

Application 765/2002 ‘B’

 

The changes proposed by application ‘B’ are acceptable. The proposed modification to the roof structure at the rear of the building is compatible in scale with the approved additions and surrounding buildings. The change will not detract from the appearance of the semi detached dwelling from the street.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 765/2002 on property 22A Pauling Avenue by applications ‘A’, dated 25 June 2003 and ‘B’ dated 23 July 2003 in the following manner:

 

1.       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans comprising of 5 sheets numbered 57/02, dated 8 August 2002 and received by Council on the 12 August 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the A4 set of faxed, amended part plans (3 sheets) stamped received by Council on 27/06/03, except as may be amended by Sheets 1-4 of Plan No.57/02C, drawn by Ross Sampson and dated 15.07.03, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 applications except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.     Delete Condition 4.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.    The applicant is advised that the two skylights on the northern side of the house do not appear to meet the requirements of the BCA with regard to fire safety. 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. Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report  66/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

143-147 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

20 August, 2003

FILE NO:

1049/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development No 1049/02 for the demolition of existing service station and the construction of a four level multi-unt residential building, including basement car parking, containing seven x 1 bedroom apartments and the strata subdivision of the building for Council’s 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 19 August, 2003

2. A4 configuration plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

19 August, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1049/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing service station and the construction of a four level multi-unit residential building, including basement car parking, containing seven x 1 bedroom apartments and the strata subdivision of the building

PROPERTY:

 143-147 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 East No. 1 Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Notley-Smith and Matson.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing service station on the site and the construction of a multi unit housing development consisting of seven (7) x one (1) bedroom apartments over a basement parking that is partly below existing ground level.

 

A preliminary site investigation has established that soil contamination exists on the site and accordingly Council must be satisfied that the land will be satisfactorily remediated for its intended residential use.  Further information is required in relation to the remediation action plan and as such deferred commencement conditions are included in the Recommendation.

 

The application relies on the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 for approval.  As such the statutory standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the provisions of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi unit housing do not pertain to the application and instead the application must be considered on its merits.  The application has been amended to minimise the view loss impacts, the main subject of objection to the original proposal.

 

It is considered that the impacts associated with the amended application including overshadowing; overlooking; loss of views/outlook from neighbouring properties have been minimised and are reasonable in the particular circumstances of this development.

 

It is considered that the design of the proposal makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and exhibits good urban design features.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.        THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the following:-

·                            the demolition of the existing service station buildings and structures;

·                            the remediation of the land; and

·                            the construction of a four level multi-unit residential building comprising of three levels of apartments, seven (7) x one (1) bedroom apartments in total, plus basement parking for seven (7) vehicles.

 

Five (5) apartments are split level in design with the bedroom, bathroom and study on the street entry level (Level 1) and having internal stairs leading to Level 2, consisting of an open plan kitchen, dining and living area opening onto a north facing balcony.  An internal stairway is provided in each of these apartments to an allocated car parking space in the basement car park.

 

The remaining two (2) apartments are located on Level 3 of the building are accessed via stairs on the east elevation (Mount Street) that also connect to the basement car park.

 

3.        THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is situated on the south-west corner Coogee Bay Road and Mount Street, Coogee and is irregular in shape, having a total site area of 496.9m2.  Existing on the site is a single storey service station and workshop buildings and ancillary structures (see Figure 1). 

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Coogee Bay Road

with 88B Mount Street to the rear

 

 

The site to the south (88B Mount Street) is significantly elevated (approximately 2m to 2.5m) with respect to the subject site and is contained by a retaining wall along the southern boundary of the site. Located on the adjoining site to the south (88B Mount Street) is a four storey residential flat building (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 1).

 

Adjoining the site to the west on Coogee Bay Road is a four (4) level residential flat building (141 Coogee Bay Road) consisting of three (3) residential levels, with parking at grade to the street (see Figure 2).

 

 

Figure 2 – 141 Coogee Bay Road

 

4.        SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 8th November, 2002 and was advertised and notified until the 3rd December, 2002.  As part of the Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the development application, submissions pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 were provided in respect to s