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

 

19th September, 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, 23RD SEPTEMBER 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, 26TH AUGUST, 2003.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 54/2003 - SURFING NSW - WAIVING OF FEES.

2

 

5.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 55/2003 - WAIVING OF FEES - CAROLS BY THE SEA 2003.

3

 

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2003 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

5

6.2

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 23/2003 – EAST TIMOR PROJECT.

7

                                                                                               

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 47/2003 - 2003-2004 ROAD FUNDING.

9

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 48/2003 - UNDERGROUND CABLING MARINE PARADE BETWEEN UNDINE STREET AND WILSON STREET, MAROUBRA.

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 49/2003 - MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME, MAROUBRA .

15

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 50/2003 - STREET TREES - SOUTHERN SIDE OF BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK.

29

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 51/2003 - TENDER 08/03 - CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS.

34

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 52/2003 - GRAFFITI CONTROL OPTIONS.

39

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 53/2003 - PACIFIC SQUARE PROJECT, MAROUBRA CONSTRUCTION HOURS AT ANZAC PARADE CAR PARK.

53

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 25/2003 - SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION - 40 COOGEE BAY ROAD, RANDWICK AND 56 CARR STREET, COOGEE.

58

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 72/2003 - 199-203A MALABAR ROAD, COOGEE.

61

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 73/2003 - 19 CHATHAM STREET, RANDWICK.

85

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 74/2003 266 - 270 CLOVELLY ROAD, CLOVELLY.

142

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 75/2003 - 23 JUDGE STREET, RANDWICK.

175

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1

By Councillor Matthews – Schedule for Footpath Construction in 2003/2004.

217

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Speed Humps at the Loop at La Perouse.

217

11.3

By Councillor Tracey – Traffic Calming Devices in Dangar, Wentworth and King Streets, Randwick.

217

11.4

By Councillor Andrews – Jack Vanny Memorial Reserve, Marine Parade, Maroubra.

217

11.5

By Councillor Andrews – Replacement of Fence between 2 Macleay Street, South Coogee and Gollan Park

217

11.6

By Councillor Matson – Apology for failing to meet Council resolution on Street Trees in Abbott Street Coogee.

217

11.7

By Councillor Matson – Abidance by NOI recommendations on Bundock St Site.

218

11.8

By Councillor Matson – Concern over Asbestos Amelioration at Prince Henry Site. 

218

11.9

By Councillor Matson – Partnerships Register. 

218

11.10

By Councillor Matson – Motion on the Australia US Free Trade Agreement for Local Councils. 

218

11.11

By Councillor Procopiadis – Women’s Athletic Field. 

219

11.12

By Councillor Whitehead – 9 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra.

219

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 76/2003 - 95-97 MASON STREET & 102 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

220

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15          Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

…………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 54/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SURFING NSW - WAIVING OF FEES

 

 

DATE:

3 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1411

 

 

REPORTED BY:      MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 27 August, 2003, has been received from Mr Mark Windon, from Surfing NSW Inc, requesting use of Maroubra Beach for the upcoming State Surfing Titles from 31 October to 2 November, 2003 inclusive.

 

ISSUES:

 

As this event is the stepping stone for young up and coming surfers from within our region to State and National Titles, Mr Mark Windon seeks the waiving of fees for the event on Maroubra Beach which amount to $220.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as this event is a non profit event and to assist, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event. The estimated cost involved will be $220.00. Funds associated with the waiving of these fees are available through the Councillor Bids Vote 2003/2004

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council vote $220.00 to cover the fees associated with the surfing event and funds be allocated from the Councillors Bids Vote for 2003/2004; and

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 55/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - CAROLS BY THE SEA 2003

 

 

DATE:

2 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1219

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr Jack Kasses, Secretary of St Paul’s Anglican Church advising that the St Paul’s is currently planning its annual major community event of  “Carols by the Sea” to be held on Saturday, 6TH December, 2003 at Grant Reserve, from 5.30pm to 9.30pm.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Kasses expresses the Church’s appreciation of the support given by Council towards this major community event and seeks the waiving of fees for the banner installation and dismantling across Coogee Bay Road and all other associated administrative fees that will enable St Paul’s to financially better meet the high costs of staging such an event.

 

Installation and dismantling of banner (24NOV03-8DEC03)     $   528.00

Banner over public roadway fee                                                            $   440.00

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 8 by 240L bins)   $   436.00

Connection to power                                                                            $     74.80

Administration Fee                                                                                $   220.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $1,828.80

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that St Paul’s Anglican Church is a non-profit organisation and to assist with the event, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event.  The estimated cost involved will be approximately $1,828.80.  Funds associated with the waiving of these fees are available through the Councillors Donations Vote for 2003/04.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council vote $1,828.80 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Councillors Donations Vote for 2003/04.

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2388, 98/S/2737, P/003590/R0500/00

 

 

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 agreements between Council and -

 

1.         Nick Kypreos (T/As Poppy’s Place) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 532 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

2.         Randwick Netball Association Incorporated in relation to a licence for Part of Crown Reserve No. 8174 known as Heffron Park, more particularly described as the Netball Control Centre.

3.         Larry & Lorraine Williams (T/As Lazza’s Place) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 331 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

4.         Robert Wallace (T/As Ummarin Thai Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 66 Perouse Road, Randwick.

5.         Malabar Boat Owners & Sea Rescue Club and Malabar RSL Sub-Branch Club Limited in relation to a licence for Part of Reserve No. 81544, more particularly described as a parcel of land including a boat ramp and storage shed, located at the southern foreshore opposite Bay Parade, Malabar.

6.         Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre in relation to a lease for Lots 4087 & 4536, DP 752015 more particularly described as the ground floor of 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar.

7.         Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for an area of the footpath, being part of Marine Parade public road, situated north of Lots 4-5, DP 5760, adjacent to their development site at 182 Marine Parade, Maroubra Beach.

 

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 the agreements between Council and –

 

1.         Nick Kypreos (T/As Poppy’s Place) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 532 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

2.         Randwick Netball Association Incorporated in relation to a licence for Part of Crown Reserve No. 8174 known as Heffron Park, more particularly described as the Netball Control Centre.

3.         Larry & Lorraine Williams (T/As Lazza’s Place) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 331 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

4.         Robert Wallace (T/As Ummarin Thai Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 66 Perouse Road, Randwick.

5.         Malabar Boat Owners & Sea Rescue Club and Malabar RSL Sub-Branch Club Limited in relation to a licence for Part of Reserve No. 81544, more particularly described as a parcel of land including a boat ramp and storage shed, located at the southern foreshore opposite Bay Parade, Malabar.

6.         Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre in relation to a lease for Lots 4087 & 4536, DP 752015 more particularly described as the ground floor of 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar.

7.         Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for an area of the footpath, being part of Marine Parade public road, situated north of Lots 4-5, DP 5760, adjacent to their development site at 182 Marine Parade, Maroubra Beach.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

East Timor Project

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2604

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council, at its Administration and Finance Committee meeting on 12 August 2003, resolved to support the SSROC Friendship Region relationship with the sub-districts of Iliomar and Uato Carabau, located in the south east of East Timor.

 

SSROC was requested by the Consul General in Sydney to work with these two sub-districts because of the particular needs of the communities in these remote areas. In order to build the partnership, representatives of SSROC member Councils need to establish strong personal links with the key players and gain direct understanding of the development priorities of these remote sub-districts. A delegation from SSROC will visit the region in East Timor, with the support and backing of the Consul General’s office in Sydney and the District Affairs Office in Dili.

 

ISSUES:

 

The objectives of the delegation are to:

 

·    Establish contacts for the SSROC Councils and other organisations in the SSROC region, that will have long term value to the partnership

 

·    Identify projects of mutual benefit for the communities in the two sub-districts and for the SSROC Councils and the communities, e.g skill development programs, sister school relationships

 

·    Develop an understanding (formal and informal) between SSROC and the two sub-districts about the nature of the friendship relationship.

 

This first delegation will consist of about three representatives who will play a major leadership role in developing the friendship. In this case, it is proposed that the Mayor represent Randwick City Council in the first delegation, together with the President of SSROC.

 

Future delegations involving Council delegates with particular interests and expertise in areas such as governance, education, commerce, health, will be arranged as required in the future.

 

While in East Timor, the delegation will meet with District Administration of Lautem and Viqueque and the Sub-District Coordinators of Iliomar and Uato Carabau, as well as representatives of school, church and the community organizations. They would also meet with representatives of the Timor Leste Government and The Australian Government as well as non-government organizations and aid agencies based in Dili. Extensive research and preparation is now being undertaken by SSROC staff in order to maximize the benefit of the trip.

 

It is proposed that expenses of the delegates will be met by their Council. Based on information provided by the recent Ballarat Council delegation, and by advisers to the SSROC who recently traveled to Iliomar and Uato Carabau, it is proposed that Council will cover expenses relating to travel, accommodation and other reasonable ancillary expenses.

 

It is pointed out that East Timor is developing slowly and travel conditions are not ideal. Outside of Dili, accommodation options are limited to guest houses and in Ilimar and Uato Carabau, delegates will need to provide their own bedding.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council endorse the participation of the Mayor in the delegation to East Timor to establish the friendship region relationship with Iliomar and Uato Carabau and councils in the southern Sydney region, scheduled for October 2003.

 

That Council covers the reasonable expenses of the Mayor’s participation in the delegation.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Minutes of the SSROC East Timor Partnership Working Group  meeting held on 31 July 2003 at Marrickville Council

2.         SSROC East Timor Partnership

3.         Briefing Notes:  SSROC & East Timor Partnership Paper - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 

………………………………

GORDON MESSITER

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 47/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003-2004 ROAD FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

10 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In September 2002, Council made application to the Roads & Traffic Authority for Local Road amenity and road safety related projects for 2003-2004, funded through 50:50 arrangements. The RTA has recently advised Council of its approved funding program for 2003-2004. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding, Council is required to provide formal acceptance of the funding allocations.

 

ISSUES:

 

Provision was made in the 2003-2004 budget for the following Local Road amenity and road safety related projects:

 

Project Description

Council

Grant

Undertake provision of bicycle path from Centennial Park to University of New South Wales.

$50,000

$50,000

Pedestrian Refuge near the intersection of Cook Street And Frances Street, Randwick

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge to be constructed on Clovelly Road between Beach Street and Keith Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge to be constructed on Clovelly Road between Arden Street and Beach Street

$5,000

$5,000

Roundabout, Clovelly Road/Beach Street Intersection, Clovelly

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Moverly Road/Loch Maree Street Intersection, Maroubra

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Carrington Road/Bream Street Intersection, Coogee

$32,500

$32,500

Roundabout, Boyce Road/Royal Street Intersection, Maroubra.

$30,000

$30,000

Roundabout, Sturt Street/Paton Street Intersection, Kingsford

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Brook Street/Dudley Street Intersection, Coogee

$35,000

$35,000

 

 

Roundabout projects at Brook Street/Dudley Street Intersection, Coogee and                           Clovelly Road/Beach Street Intersection, Clovelly, have been fully funded under the 2003-2004 National Blackspot Programme.

 

In addition, the Roads & Traffic Authority has advised that Council has successfully secured funding in the amount of $35,000 under initiatives for Local Road amenity and road safety related projects, for a at roundabout Moverly Road/Loch Maree Street Intersection, Maroubra. Should Council accept the grant funding, Council’s minimum required contribution to the project would be $35,000 which has been adequately allowed for in Council’s current budget.

 

It is proposed that Council’s budgeted allocations to these projects, totalling $237,500, be re-allocated to projects as follows:

 

Project Description

Council

Pavement Rehabilitation for Blackspot Roundabout Project Clovelly Road

$30,000

Pavement Rehabilitation for Blackspot Roundabout Project Brook Street

$30,000

Traffic Calming Measures Snape Street, Maroubra.

$55,000

Continued Implementation of Stage 1 Randwick Bicycle Plan

$55,000

Cycle Improvements Todman Avenue & Baker Street, Kensington

$10,000

Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Todman Avenue & Carminya Street, Kensington

$10,000

Kerb Blister Todman Avenue & Baker Street, Kensington

$10,000

Tunstall Avenue Concrete Median/Traffic calming Tunstall Avenue & Addison Street, Kensington – Traffic calming.

$8,000

MIST Treatment Dampier Street & Forrest Street, Chifley

$8,000

Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Maroubra Road & Flower Street, Maroubra

$7,500

Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Bowral Street, Kensington

$7,000

Pram Ramp Construction Avoca Street, Kingsford.

$7,000

 

 

Total

$237,500

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Sufficient funding for all RTA projects for 2003-2004 has been allowed for in Council’s current budget, and allocations totalling $237,500, to projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2003-2004, should be re-allocated to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 10 September 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 That:

 

1.         Council accept the proposed RTA grants for 2003-2004

2.         Council re-allocate the $237,500 allocated for projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2003-2004, to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 10 September 2003.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 48/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

UNDERGROUND CABLING MARINE PARADE BETWEEN UNDINE STREET AND WILSON STREET, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

15 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1719; R/0500/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a petition from the residents of 24 to 34 Marine Parade, requesting Council’s co-operation and 50% contribution to cover the costs associated with the undergrounding of existing electrical cables in Marine Parade between Undine Street and Wilson Street.

 

At its meeting held 25 March 2003, Council separately resolved:

 

that the petition be referred to the appropriate Committee and/or the Councillors’ Bulletin with a report from the relevant officer.

 

And

 

That a report be prepared on the cost of removing the overhead electrical wiring and placing it underground on the section of Marine Parade that runs between Undine Street and Wilson Street, Lurline Bay.

 

ISSUES:

 

The section of Marine Parade between Undine Street and Wilson Street permits no through traffic, and vehicular access is only available from Undine Street. There are 6 properties fronting this section of Marine Parade, and the road is generally unformed except for a sealed strip allowing access to some of the properties.

 

This section of Marine Parade forms part of the Coastal Walkway, although no formal pathway has been constructed and the walkway utilises the existing surface of Marine Parade. 

 

A number of electric light poles have been replaced with lamp poles and cables placed underground in the area immediately west of this section of Marine Parade. The area extends east along a pathway from Waterside Avenue to the section of Marine Parade joining Inman Street, then along the Coastal Walkway to the section of Marine Parade joining Undine Street, and connects to above ground cabling on one of the electric light poles to be replaced with a lamp pole as part of the proposed works.

 

Other coastal areas where cables have been placed underground include La Perouse from The Loop to Goorawahl Avenue and areas in the vicinity of the Maroubra Beach Promenade.

 

La Perouse works were funded from Council contributions in the form of Optus infrastructure rental fees received between 1998 and 2002. Part of the Marine Parade works were funded from resident contributions, and the above Council contributions.

 

The petitioners have requested Council’s assistance in the undergrounding of existing electrical cables in Marine Parade between Undine Street and Wilson Street. The petitioners would be prepared to share a 50:50 contribution with Council to cover the costs associated with completion of the works.

 

The proposed undergrounding works comprise the following:

 

1.         Removal of two existing electric light poles, and replacement with suitable lamp poles;

2.         Undergrounding of electrical cables along Undine Street frontage of  No. 24 Marine Parade then continuing east along Marine Parade to existing electric light pole at corner of Wilson Street and Marine Parade;

3.         Private connections to underground mains;

4.         Reinstatement and restoration.

 

Energy Australia has provided a quotation detailing the estimated cost of the works at $85,812 including a $1,200 investigation fee should works proceed. The cost for private connections to the underground mains, would be covered by the affected property owner. The petitioners are aware of the quoted costs and have advised that they are prepared to proceed provided Council agrees to a 50% contribution. The quotation does not include restoration costs for the work as per Council’s Fees & Charges which are estimated at $5,000.

 

The total cost for the work is therefore estimated at $90,812  and consequently the 50%  contribution for the petitioners and Council would be $45,406.

 

There is no allocation in the 2003-2004 budget for these works, and consequently, Council is currently unable to provide the requested contribution to these works.

 

However should the petitioners choose to meet the full cost and wish to proceed with the proposed works, Council would have no objection to the works and would waive any associated restorations costs owed by Energy Australia to the Council in respect of the works.

 

While the proposed Marine Parade works would extend adjacent existing underground cable infrastructure, and minimal benefits to visual amenity would be afforded to users of the Coastal Walkway, the main benefit of these works would be to residences fronting this section of Marine Parade.

 

Areas with high community/visitor usage such as reserves, generally constitute the highest priority for undergrounding of electrical cables in coastal areas.  

 

Consequently, any consideration of the allocation of funds to the undergrounding of electrical cables in coastal areas should take account of priority areas with high community/visitor usage.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The total cost associated with undergrounding electrical cables in Marine Parade between Undine Street and Wilson Street, as requested by the petitioners, is estimated at $90,812  and consequently the 50%  contribution for the petitioners and Council would be $45,406.

 

There is no allocation in the 2003-2004 budget for these works, and consequently, Council is currently unable to provide the requested contribution to these works.

 

However should the petitioners choose to meet the full cost and wish to proceed with the proposed works, Council would have no objection to the works and would waive any associated restorations costs owed by Energy Australia to the Council in respect of the works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the petitioners be advised that:

 

1.         There is no allocation in the 2003-2004 budget for these works, and consequently, Council is currently unable to provide the requested contribution to these works.

2.         Should the petitioners choose to meet the full cost and wish to proceed with the proposed works, Council would have no objection to the works and would waive any associated restorations costs owed by Energy Australia to the Council in respect of the works.

           

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET  ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report  49/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1654  98/S/0959

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at it’s meeting held on 22nd October 2002 reconsidered the 1996 Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme, and adopted the following summary recommendations of the Randwick Traffic Committee:

 

(a)                Bunnerong Road / Glanfield Street: Introduction of No-Right turn restriction

Recommendation: An investigation of possible impacts of this measure be carried out to assess its suitability.

 

(b)               Maroubra Road and Royal Street intersection

Recommendation: The intersection be monitored for future consideration for the provision of a roundabout.

 

(c)                Storey Street, between Percival and Hannan Streets: Provision of kerb blisters and Edge Lines

Recommendation: Design plans for these treatments be finalised as a matter of urgency for implementation.

 

(d)               Storey Street and Flower Street intersection

Recommendation: The intersection be monitored for future consideration of the provision of a mini roundabout.

 

(e)                Holmes Street and Garden Street intersection

Recommendation: The intersection be monitored for future consideration of the provision of a mini roundabout.


 

(f)                 Snape Street – Intersections of Irvine Street and Hannan Street: Proposed mini roundabouts

Recommendation: The above roundabouts be listed for design and construction as a matter of urgency. The residents of Smith Street be advised of the proposed partial closure of Smith Street, subject to final design of roundabout.

 

(g)                The following proposals be referred to the RTA for funding assistance:

 

1)                  Proposed Pedestrian Safety Study for the Maroubra Road / Anzac Parade Commercial District.

 

2)                  Median islands with signage at the intersections of: Boyce Road / Royal Street; Boyce Road / Hannan Street; Gale Road / Royal Street; and Gale Road / Flower Street.

 

3)                  Provision of kerb blisters and line marking for parking lanes in Storey Street, from Anzac Parade to Flower Street.

 

4)                  Provision of mini roundabout at Boyce Road / Cooper Street.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee at it’s meeting on 9th September 2003 reviewed the current status and issues as outlined below:

 

a)                  Left In / Left Out provisions at the Bunnerong Road and Glanfield Street intersection were recommended in the 1996 original scheme which, in terms of vehicle conflicts, was considered as an acceptable treatment.

 

            Since the original Scheme, a ‘No Right Turn’ restriction has been introduced at the intersection of Storey Street and Bunnerong Road.  The Traffic Committee has reported that such a restriction at the Glanfield Street intersection would further limit the area’s residential access. 

 

            The Committee considers that it is not warranted on traffic grounds and has recommended that the proposal be abandoned.

 

b)                  Roundabout at Maroubra Road and Royal Street intersection:

 

The original proposal for a roundabout at this location was mainly to assist with U-Turns in Maroubra Road.  However, it is considered that a roundabout may not be the best option at this location for the following reasons:-

 

·                    Multilane roundabouts are not generally conducive for motorists;

 

·                    Loss of kerb side parking will be greater than other viable treatments;

·                    Existing right turn bays for the east and west bound traffic have greatly eliminated U-Turn vehicle conflicts at this location;

 

·                    Provision of blister islands to reduce carriageway widths on Maroubra Road at the approach to the intersection, together with line marking, may prove to be a practical and cost effective treatment to achieve speed control and intersection safety in the vicinity.

 

The RTA and Police representatives have indicated support to these modified proposals, which are being finalised by Council’s Traffic Engineers.

 

c)                  The Traffic Committee at its meeting on 8 April 2003 has agreed to the design plans for Storey Street incorporating kerb blisters, edge lines for parking and guide lines at intersections, as shown on Plans A1, A2 and A3, attached to this report.

 

d)                  & e)     The proposals to install mini roundabouts at Storey Street & Flower Street intersection; and Holmes & Garden Streets intersection do not meet the warrants, in terms of Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), established by the RTA.

 

Council officers are therefore preparing modified proposals incorporating kerb blisters, associated with centrally located traffic islands and line marking, to achieve intersection safety and speed control at these locations.

 

f)                    With a view to expediting the implementation of traffic calming measures in Snape Street, the following viable and cost effective treatments are now proposed:

 

1.                  Introduction of a kerb bulge at the south eastern corner of Bunnerong Road and Snape Street, to narrow the carriageway width;

 

2.                  A slow point in Snape Street, immediately east of Percival Street;

 

3.                  A slow point, immediately east and west of Irvine Street;

 

4.                  A slow point, immediately west of Hannan Street;

 

5.                  Provision of parking edge lines, between Percival Street and Smith Street;

 

6.                  Provision of a centre of carriageway separation lines;

 

7.                  Introduction of  ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on both sides of Snape Street at its approach to the Anzac Parade traffic signal controlled intersection.

 

The proposals are shown on attached plans B1, B2, B3 and B4.

 

The Traffic Committee at its meeting on 9th September 2003 raised no objection to the implementation of the above measures to achieve safety at intersections and speed controls in Snape Street, between Bunnerong Road and Anzac Parade.

 

The Traffic Committee has reported that the previously suggested partial closure of Smith Street is not warranted with the implementation of these new proposals, to achieve traffic calming in Snape Street, and therefore has recommended that it be deleted.

 

g)                  By letter dated 19 November 2002, Council made a submission to the RTA for funding assistance for:  

       

1.                  Undertaking a of Pedestrian Safety Study for the Maroubra Road / Anzac Parade Commercial District;

 

2.                  Provision of median islands with signage at the intersections of: Boyce Road / Royal Street; Boyce Road / Hannan Street; Gale Road / Royal Street; and Gale Road / Flower Street;

 

3.                  Provision of kerb blisters and line marking for parking lanes in Storey Street, from Anzac Parade to Flower Street;

 

4.                  Provision of mini roundabout at Boyce Road / Cooper Street.

 

In response to Council’s submission, RTA’s representative at the Randwick Traffic Committee stated that Council’s submission has been considered but the Authority could not accede to Council’s request for funding these projects.

 

RTA’s view is that these are local streets under Council’s control and Council is responsible for improving the local amenity of these streets.

 

In regard to the proposed Pedestrian Safety Study, RTA’s representative advised that  Council could consider funding the Study from Section 94 contributions received from developers of the Maroubra Junction area.

 

The Traffic Committee has advised that the proposal to provide a mini roundabout at the Boyce Road / Cooper Street intersection could be deleted and this intersection could also be treated with median islands and signage, in a manner proposed at similar intersections outlined in g) 2. above.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A.                 The primary objective of the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme was to recommend implementation of traffic calming devices to protect and enhance the residential amenity of the study area.

 

Two major components of the Scheme, adopted by Council at its meeting on 22nd October 2002, are the Traffic Calming Measures proposed for Storey Street (west of Anzac Parade) and Snape Street.

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee has finalised design plans for works in these two streets, and it is considered that Council should implement these works without any further delay.

 

Funding for the Storey Street works has been included in the current Capital Works Program. Funding for the Snape Street works can be made available from the residual funds allocated for traffic facilities in the current budget but which the RTA has not funded.

 

B.                 Council should adopt in principal the changes suggested in this report, for the purpose of achieving cost effective treatments, for traffic calming measures at the following locations:-

 

1.                  Maroubra Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

2.                  Storey Street / Flower Street intersection;

 

3.                  Holmes Street / Garden Street intersection;

 

4.                  Boyce Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

5.                  Boyce Road / Hannan Street intersection;

 

6.                  Boyce Road / Cooper Street intersection;

 

7.                  Gale Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

8.                  Gale Road / Flower Street intersection;

 

Council could consider allocation of funds for the completion of these works in the next year’s (2004-2005) budget.

 

C.                 Council should defer the commencement of the Pedestrian Safety Study for the Maroubra Road / Anzac Parade Commercial District until the completion of major developments in the area, viz. Pacific Square Development and Dudley’s Emporium Development (north east corner of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road). 

 

The proposed Pedestrian Study was to assess the impact of future pedestrian movements and their interaction with the area wide traffic control.  It is therefore considered that funding for the Study should be allocated from Section 94 contributions received from developments in the Maroubra Junction area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

A.             Council adopt in principle strategies and programme outlined in report dated 18 September 2003 by Director Assets and Infrastructure Services for the purpose of finalising the implementation of the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme;

 

B.                 The plans for the Traffic Calming of Storey Street, illustrated on the attached Plans A1, A2 and A3, be approved and the works constructed as soon as practical from the funds allocated in the current budget;

 

C.                 The plans for the Traffic Calming of Snape Street, illustrated on the attached Plans B1, B2, B3 and B4, be approved and the works constructed as soon as practical; Funding for these works be made available from the residual funds allocated for traffic facilities in the current budget but which have not attracted the required funding from the RTA in order for these projects to proceed;

 

D.                 The design plans for traffic calming measures at the following locations:

 

1.                  Maroubra Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

2.                  Storey Street / Flower Street intersection;

 

3.                  Holmes Street / Garden Street intersection;

 

4.                  Boyce Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

5.                  Boyce Road / Hannan Street intersection;

 

6.                  Boyce Road / Cooper Street intersection;

 

7.                  Gale Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

8.                  Gale Road / Flower Street intersection;

 

            be finalised as proposed in this report and funding for these works be included in the next year’s (2004-2005) budget;

 

E.                  The Pedestrian Safety Study for the Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade Commercial District be deferred until the completion of major developments in the area, viz.  Pacific Square Development and Dudley’s Emporium Development (north east corner of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road);

 

F.                  A sum of $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) for engaging traffic consultants to carry out the Pedestrian Study, be allocated from Section 94 contributions received from developments in the Maroubra Junction area;

 

G.                 No action be taken in regard to the introduction of a ‘No Right Turn’ restriction at the intersection of Bunnerong Road and Glanfield Street;

 

H.                 No action be taken to close Smith Street at Snape Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3 and B4 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 









 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 50/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

STREET TREES - SOUTHERN SIDE OF BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0128/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has adopted a Master Plan for a staged, large-scale residential development in surplus Department of Defence land bounded by Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Holmes Street, Randwick.

 

Council has approved a development application and construction certificate application for civil infrastructure works associated with Stage 1A of the adopted Master Plan, such stage being generally located in the north-eastern portion of the Master Plan site with frontage to Bundock Street.

 

Council is in receipt of a development application for civil infrastructure works associated with Stages 2 and 3 of the approved Master Plan, such stages being located to the west of Stage 1A and with frontage to Bundock Street.

 

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of residential dwellings within part of Stage 1A.

 

ISSUES:

 

Development of the site in general accordance with the approved Master Plan will require the augmentation of public utility services such as town water supply, sewer and electricity. Given that the Master Plan site has frontage to the southern side of Bundock Street the provision of services will generally impact on the southern edge of the Bundock Street road carriageway and the southern verge area of Bundock Street.

 

The applicant has been conditioned to construct a concrete footpath along the southern side of Bundock Street going from the eastern extremity of Stage 1A west to Avoca Street. Provision of the concrete footpath, together with alterations to, and upgrading of the public utility services, (in particular Sydney Water controlled water mains), will severely impact the long term health and stability of street trees located along the southern side of Bundock Street, between Avoca Street and Hendy Avenue.

 

The concrete footpath must be located along the southern side of Bundock Street and alternate locations for the public utility services will either impact significantly on the road carriageway in Bundock Street or the existing street trees located on the northern side of Bundock Street.

 

The street trees affected number approximately 55 and they are predominantly a mixture of Eucalyptus species and mallee type Paperbarks, with many in a declining state of health. The majority of the trees are either nearing the end of their Safe Useful Life Expectancy, (S.U.L.E.) or are infected with bracket fungi or other diseases. A large proportion of the trees lost branches during recent high winds.

 

The subject street trees now represent a risk to the public and the roots of a number of trees located to the west of Canberra Street are causing damage to public infrastructure, (i.e. kerb and gutter, drainage pits and the road pavement).

 

The existing street trees are not in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan. The species selected for the southern side of Bundock Street is Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Mugga Mugga Ironbark). This species grows to approximately ten metres in height with a canopy width of around six-eight metres. They have blue-green leaves, pink flowers and a deep furrowed bark. They are a good provider of habitat and food source for native birds and wildlife.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The provision of public utility services and a concrete footpath along the southern side of Bundock Street will have an adverse impact on those existing street trees located on the southern side of Bundock Street, between Avoca Street and Hendy Avenue. Given that the majority of the street trees are nearing their safe useful life and/or infected with bracket fungi and/or causing damage to public infrastructure it is considered appropriate that they be removed and replaced whilst other infrastructure works are taking place.

 

The potential loss of amenity caused by removal of the street trees will be offset by replacement planting in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan. The loss of amenity caused by removal of street trees located west of Canberra Street will also be offset by the fact that significant trees are located within the Department of Defence site, immediately south of the street trees to be removed.  

The cost of removing the affected street trees, (estimated at $27,500), and undertaking an extensive replacement planting program will be met by the applicant for Stage 1A and Stages 2 and 3 of the approved Master Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

A.        The approximately 55 street trees located along the southern side of Bundock Street, between Avoca Street and Hendy Avenue, be removed and replacement planting be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

B.         All costs associated with removal of the existing street trees, together with replacement street tree planting, be met by the applicant for Development Applications 63/2003 and 427/2002, (i.e. Department of Defence).

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attach A

Attach B  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN FLANIGAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 



 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 51/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 08/03 - CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4723 Pt 5

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Tenders were called in accordance with the Purchasing Policy to enable Council to  select one or a number of capable providers for the civil maintenance and contribution services listed below to supplement the Council’s existing internal capacities.

 

§   Stormwater Drainage;

§   Asphalt Minor Works;

§   Concrete Works & Restorations;

§   Nature Strip Restoration (Turfing).

 

It was specified that the agreement period would be for 3 years.

 

Tenders closed on Tuesday 16th September 2003 and seven (7) submissions were received for the various categories within the list.  Discussion and evaluation of the Tenders received are set out in this report.

 

BACKGROUND:

Tenders for the above items were called since the contractor who previously provided these services recently advised Council that his company was not in a position to continue its contract with Council.

 

Presently the Council undertakes a process of individual quoting and/or tendering for each of the nominated services, as they are required. 

 

This process is time consuming, repetitive and does not provide the best value for money required by the Council.

 

To address this inefficiency it was decided to again invite tenders for these services and on determination of those suppliers offering the greatest value for money, enter into a “Preferred Suppliers” agreement with them for a defined period of time.

 

In order to undertake the Councils 2003/4 approved Footpath Program and in conjunction with daily maintenance works, it was decided to appoint one or a number of contractors for the services required under this contract.

 

Tender Assessment

 

The Tender Specification Part A ‘Conditions of Tendering’ advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1993. Tenderers were also given an indication of the selection criteria (see below), which would be used in the evaluation:

(a)        The Rate;

(b)        Quality Assurance;

(c)        Occupational Health and Safety;

(d)        Compliance with Tender contract terms and conditions;

(e)        Tenderers capacity, qualifications and previous experience;

(f)         Tenderer’s financial capacity/stability.

The criteria were not listed in any particular order and it was emphasised that they would not be accorded equal weight in the assessment process. It was also pointed out that the criteria were intended to give Tenderers a general indication of the Council’s priorities and that Council reserved the right to disregard any of the above-listed criteria or to apply additional criteria. 

Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising:

Ms. Kim Davis – Manager, Governance Management & Information Services

Mr. Trevor Stolz – Acting Manager, Assets & Infrastructure

Mr. Shane Cooke – Acting Coordinator, Operational Resources

Mr. Tim Lawson – Supply Officer, Governance Management & Information Services

Evaluation Process

The evaluation of all responses was done in accordance with the evaluation plan completed and approved prior to the close of tenders.

The process of Evaluation was as follows:

1.         The evaluation committee undertook an objective quality assessment of the completed schedules, submitted as part of each tender.  In particular Schedule B17 asked a number of specific questions drawn from the Part E “Requirements Specification”. 

2.         The schedule of information and the specific questions were listed under the relevant criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation.  Team members scored the criteria together with reference to the “Scoring Guideline”.  Individual scores were then calculated into a final score and recorded on the “Quality/Total Score” sheet. 

3.         The tenderers rates, submitted in Schedule B3 “Tender Submission” were compared in a number of ways depending on their complexity and relevance to determine the best rates submitted for a particular service.  In some cases individual rates were compared directly.  Where there were a number of relevant rates, an average rate was calculated and where the volumes of certain items greatly outweighed minor items.  eg.  Footpath construction in the Capital Works Programme, these items were weighted heavier to address Councils main usage area and achieve a value for money conclusion.

4.         The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Summary Scoring” sheet and where the score was considered acceptable it was further related to the $ rate submitted or averaged for that service. 

5.         The results of this assessment are attached.

Based on this assessment the team was able to recognise an order of preference for each service that offered the Council the “best value for money” and “best OH&S and Quality Assured” tenderer.

Discussion of Tenders

 

As was the multi-faceted structure of works set out in the tender document, not all tenderers submitted rates for all specified categories. All categories were collated and assessment of rates was structured on an average calculation, which then enabled the committee to assess highest to lowest rate.

 

Minor Concrete Works and Nature Strip Restorations final score result showed KK Civil Engineering as having the best value for money rates followed closely by Sydney Civil Pty Ltd. Where for Stormwater Works and Asphalt Works, Sydney Civil Pty Ltd submitted the best value for money rates.

 

In the average calculation of all works tendered, Sydney Civil Pty Ltd rated best value for money.

 

In order to better meet Councils need, more than one supplier is the preferred option, in support of this and following evaluation of the tenders submitted, the committee determined two tendered submissions would meet this need.

 

The Schedule of Rates submitted by each supplier will be reviewed prior to engaging either contractor for a particular project.

 

Summary of findings

 

KK Civil Engineering

 

KK Civil Engineering offered a superior tender response with a quality score of 82%. KK Civil demonstrated a high level of ability to meet all Council requirements under the contract. KK Civil Engineering offered the second best rates overall.

 

KK Civil Engineering is recommended to supply under contract.

 

Sydney Civil Pty Ltd

 

Sydney Civil Pty Ltd offered a quality tender response with a quality score of 79%. Sydney Civil also demonstrated a high level of ability to meet the requirement to a slightly lesser extent than KK Civil. Sydney Civil offered the best rates in an overall calculation.

 

Sydney Civil Pty Ltd is recommended to supply under contract.

 

Benpave Pty Limited

 

Benpave Pty Limited offered a good tender, however was not as competitive as KK Civil or Sydney Civil. Benpave gained a quality score of 65% and scored 3rd with the rates offered.

 

Benpave Pty Limited is not recommended as it scored considerably less than the recommended tenderers.

 

Ally Property Services

 

Ally Property Services offered a good tender with a quality score of 64%, however Ally Property was unable to offer the range of services required under the contract and is thus not recommended.

 

Merko Services Pty Ltd

 

Merko Services Pty Ltd offered a good tender with a quality score of 64%, however Merko Services was unable to offer the range of services required under the contract and is thus not recommended.

 

Stone & Landscape Suppliers

 

The tender submitted by Stone and Landscape was well short of the requirement and did not meet the mandatory criteria, subsequently this tender was culled.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

1.         Council accepts the Tenders submitted by the following tenderers for the services as nominated below.

 

Stormwater Drainage                  -   Sydney Civil Pty Ltd   

-                                                     K.K. Civil Engineering

 

Asphalt Minor Works                 -  Sydney Civil Pty Ltd   

-   K.K. Civil Engineering

-                                      

Concrete Works & Restorations                      

-                                                 -  Sydney Civil Pty Ltd   

-                                                 -  K.K. Civil Engineering

 

Nature Strip Restorations (Turfing) 

                                                  -   Sydney Civil Pty Ltd    

                                                  -   K.K. Civil Engineering

 

2.         The unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the tender result;

 

3.         The Mayor and General Manager or their delegated representative be authorised to enter into agreements for preferred supplier status with the successful tenderers for a period of 3-years; and

 

4.         If necessary, the Mayor and General Manager or their representatives be delegated authority to affix Council’s Common Seal to any and all documents resulting from this tender.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Scoring Guidelines.

2.  Quality/Total Score.

3.  Evaluation Rate Scoring Sheets. - all under separate cover 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

SHANE COOKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

OPERATION RESOURCES ACTING CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

……………………………….

KIM DAVIS

MANAGER – PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 52/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

GRAFFITI CONTROL OPTIONS.

 

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2143

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting on 12 November 2002, Works Committee resolved that the Committee:

 

a)         Note the actions being undertaken by Randwick City Council to develop a scheme for assisting the local police with the registration of graffiti tags for the prosecution of offenders;

 

b)         Note the elements of the Auburn Council graffiti programme and the staff resources that are dedicated to the administration of this programme;

 

c)         Note there are alternative approaches to reducing graffiti that need to be addressed in the development of a Council policy on graffiti;

 

d)         Make submission to the State Government and the Local Government Association on the need for coherent legislation to deal with acts that damage or deface property such as billposters and graffiti;

 

e)         More consideration be given by Council Officers to the investigation and application of the Auburn Council graffiti programme;

 

f)          A further report be brought back to Council in 3 months on the progress in relation to the implementation of this anti-graffiti programme;

 

g)         Continue to photograph graffiti tags and supply them to the Police and work with the Police to have offenders clean up their graffiti;

 

h)         Encourage property owners to use anti-graffiti paint and provide Council with photos of any graffiti; and

 

i)          Draw up an information sheet of ways to discourage graffiti and distribute to the public.

 

Further investigations have been carried out on the reasons, motivations and prevention of graffiti. Apart from reviewing best practice literature on graffiti control and appointing a consultant to conduct a graffiti audit of Randwick City, a council officer has attended a two-day conference on “Graffiti and Disorder” held in Brisbane during 18-19 August 2003 to get a better understanding of graffiti related issues and management practices.

 

A review of Council’s current graffiti management activities is  provided, together with further analysis of Auburn Council’s graffiti management program and other case studies. A holistic and sustainable option incorporating the actions resolved by Council is proposed for graffiti management in Randwick Local Government Area.

 

 ISSUES:

 

Graffiti Background

 

Types of Graffiti

 

In their book titled “Preventing Graffiti and Vandalism”, S. Geason and P. R. Wilson write: ‘Graffiti has been around since man lived in caves’. The authors have defined two major types of graffiti:

 

a)         Opportunistic: kids being kids, no intention to cause damage but the result is damage viewed by others as vandalism. The authors advise that better results can be achieved in reducing opportunity and changing circumstances. Attempts to change an offender’s character are often not effective;

 

b)         Premeditated: malicious damage. This is more complex and requires more sophisticated and long-term solution.

 

The authors conclude that eradication of graffiti is not a realistic goal as it has a long history and is a complex problem. They submit that substantially reducing the incidence of graffiti maybe a more realistic goal.

 

Extent of Graffiti

 

According to NSW Police, approximately 300 groups involving up to 3500 youths from 12 to 18 years of age could be involved in the graffiti subculture in New South Wales, out of which at least 140 graffiti gangs or “crews” with a membership of about 800 graffitists are on the police computer.

 

It costs the NSW State Rail Authority over $5 million a year to clean graffiti off trains. NSW schools spend over $14 million a year on graffiti removal. Graffiti vandalism costs NSW over $100 million and Australians about $300 million a year.

 

Graffiti Offenders

 

The general perception is that those who indulge in graffiti are largely young people who under-achieve at school. Boredom, alienation, family and community breakdown, lack of leisure opportunities and youth unemployment are frequently cited causes.

 

The view of the NSW Transit Police is that kids become graffitists for fame, recognition and identification.

 

Criminologists have suggested a list of possible motivations:

·          Revenge

·          Anger

·          Boredom

·          Acquisition

·          Exploration

·          Aesthetic experience

·          Existential exploration

 

Professor Graham Martin, Director Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Queensland and Royal Brisbane Hospital, defines the reasons for graffiti in a presentation at “Graffiti and Disorder” conference held in Brisbane (August 2003) as:

 

·          Art

·          Political statement

·          Mark territory

·          Central to all is a “search for meaning”

 

Dr Mark Halsey, School of Law, Flinders University, conducted interviews of 43 people found guilty of graffiti offences. He has concluded that people graffiti because it is exciting and they get pleasure from it.

 

Graffiti Prevention

 

Dr Adam Graycar – Director, Australian Institute of Criminology, views the most effective response to graffiti may include a blend of targeting youth culture and crime prevention. He suggests that situation crime, such as graffiti vandalism, can be reduced if attention is given to some key elements as part of a multi-faceted program.

 

Firstly, this involves increasing the effort required for individuals to participate in graffiti activities. Initiatives to achieve this might include regulation of spray paint retailers and designing public and private space to reduce availability of surfaces to graffiti.

 

Secondly, increasing the risks may act as a deterrent to opportunistic graffitists. Surveillance, good design and planning along with community surveillance and reporting increase the risk to offenders and thereby the chance they may be apprehended.

 

Thirdly, a reduction in graffiti may result if the rewards for such risk are minimal in the eyes of the potential offender. This can be achieved by increased penalties and routine spotting followed by rapid removal of graffiti.

 

Role of Enforcement:

 

·          Police will not be successful alone

·          No single agency has responsibility– an effective response needs partnerships to be developed

·          The graffiti problem needs to be understood in the local context and strategies need to be tailored to specific areas

·          Graffiti is a complex issue – there are no panaceas

 

Role of Surveillance

 

Close-circuit TV (CCTV) surveillance is being used by 21% of NSW councils. According to Sgt John Klepczarek of NSW Police Service, CCTV has strengths and weaknesses. The cost of CCTV installation is sometimes offset by crime prevention. It increases crime detection and arrests, has an immediate impact, reduces the fear of crime, enhances personal safety, may provide useful evidence, and is effective for property crimes and offences against the person.  

 

Weaknesses of CCTV are:

 

·            Cost might be greater than the problem;

·            Can displace crime;

·            Offenders can become indifferent about the presence of CCTV;

·            Raises unrealistic expectations among the community; and

·            Civil and privacy issues

 

Experts also think that illegality of graffiti is part of the attraction.

 

Role of Publicity

 

Experts believe that publicity on graffiti control programs often has adverse outcomes vis a vis graffiti control. Experience suggests that once graffitists are made aware of a particular graffiti control program through a media blitz, they may target that area to embarrass the authorities and thereby gain satisfaction. A low-key approach of tackling the problem on the ground without unnecessary publicity and letting the results speak for themselves may ensure better outcomes.

 

Council’s Current Graffiti Management Activities

 

Newly introduced NSW legislation (effective from 1 September 2003) prohibits the sale of spray paint to customers below the age of 18. Hopefully this law reform will contribute in controlling the graffiti problem in NSW, although it is more desirable to have a coherent piece of legislation dealing specifically with graffiti. In actioning resolution (d) Council has written to the NSW EPA about addressing this in its review of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

 

Council’s Graffiti Audit

 

To assess the extent of the graffiti problem in Randwick, Council engaged Hydra Wash, a graffiti management company, to conduct an audit of the local government area. Hydra Wash spent over 120 hours documenting graffiti and interviewing various stakeholder groups.

 

A database of 1300 images has been collated and categorised into high, medium and low priority for action. This is considered to be a good representation of the graffiti incidents in the Council area but is not an exhaustive list. Hydra Wash estimates that it would take approximately 800 hours to remove the graffiti that was surveyed and documented during the audit period for the high and medium priority areas. As stipulated in resolution (g) these photographs will be supplied to the Police as for use as evidence.

 

Graffiti Removal

 

Removal of graffiti from Council property is currently undertaken in response to a REACT. Council staff may also identify graffiti in the course of other duties and have it removed. Council does not remove graffiti from private property. Generally large instances of graffiti are removed using contractors. Sometimes council’s painters remove smaller amounts of graffiti.

 

Education

 

Council is currently participating in the “Graffiti Solutions Program”.  This is a multifaceted approach implemented by the NSW Government in dealing with illegal graffiti. 

 

Council’s involvement includes:

 

·          Supporting a local community based child care organization, Dolphin St Playgroup, to develop a mural on badly tagged wall. 

 

·          Successfully secured funding ($12,000) through the Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Unit “Beat Graffiti Grants Scheme”.  This scheme is part of the Graffiti Solutions Program.

 

Two murals have been completed, one in South Ward (Coral Sea Park) and  the second, a collaboration with Department of Housing, at South Coogee.  The third, an Indigenous mural is planned for October at La Perouse.

 

·          These mural projects utilize an existing partnership between the Council’s Community Development Team and the Department of Juvenile Justice Community Service Order Team and are part of the Graffiti Solutions Package “Graffiti Clean-Up Scheme – Community Service Orders (CSO). 

 

The CSO team assist by preparing and painting walls at the identified mural site and providing ongoing surveillance of the sites to remove any new graffiti.

 

·          Support the Maroubra Police Graffiti Register by providing information and assistance to local high schools.

 

Current Expenditure

 

The total cost of graffiti removal is over $80,000 per year coming out of council’s asset maintenance programs.

 

Graffiti Management Programs

 

As graffiti is a complex problem, its management requires multi-faceted approach. The socio-economic and political environment of a local government area is the prime factor that dictates what approach can or cannot be applied for the successful management of graffiti vandalism.

 

Auburn City (NSW), Casey City (Victoria), City of Gosnells (WA) and City of Sydney (NSW) claim they are successfully and effectively managing their graffiti vandalism using a variety of programs. These are described below.

 

1. City of Gosnells, Western Australia

 

Approach:

 

City of Gosnells, Western Australia, has taken a three-pronged approach including rapid removal of graffiti, law enforcement and community arts program.

 

Rapid removal of graffiti is provided free to the community and businesses. Rapid removal involves the employment of dedicated technicians for removal of graffiti within a 24-hour period of their appearance.

 

A specific reporting hotline has been set up for the community to report incidents of graffiti. Everyone (staff included) is encouraged to report graffiti. Photographs are forwarded to the Police for use as evidence.

 

The City’s graffiti technician also coordinates offenders to assist with removal when such labour is available. This is arranged in partnership with local corrective services personnel.

 

City of Gosnells also organise a mural/art program to provide a legal environment for young people interested in graffiti writing. This is seen as a way to help develop skills and for the City to establish links with artists. It also is an opportunity to provide informal mentoring to young people involved in vandalism and graffiti crimes.

 

The City’s planning department has also begun to incorporate prevention through design principles into Council’s development guidelines and asset management programs.

 

Cost:

 

Initial costs of the program involving the employment of three technicians using two vehicles were $188,000 including council assets (98/99). Trailers for carrying equipment were made up by volunteers.

 

Costs are now reduced to maintenance expenses only and the expenditure for the financial year 2002/03 was $82,000 (average of $2 per annum per ratepayer). The program has been reduced to one vehicle and one technician due to the large reduction in the incidence of graffiti.

 

Methods:

 

The graffiti technician’s responsibilities include education and graffiti removal. The main technique used to remove graffiti is water blasting. Painting over the graffiti is also used – the technician will try and match the paint colour as best as possible or may cover the graffiti and then come back later with better matching paint (depending on the situation).

 

Other:

 

Residents reportedly view the program as a positive achievement. Staff representatives from City of Gosnells suggest it is a particularly efficient system to deal with graffiti tags as opposed to other forms of graffiti.

 

2. Auburn Council, New South Wales

 

Approach:

 

A Special Projects Manager employed by the council coordinates a program of sourced ‘no-cost’ labour involving offenders from the Department of Corrective Services with community work orders and Work for the Dole participants. Council provides a van, paints and other necessary equipment.

 

Auburns’ approach includes free rapid removal offered to all residents and businesses, a graffiti hotline and technical advice service (provided by the special projects manager) and some mural/art projects. Council maintains a database of tags to be used as evidence by the Police.

 

The Department of Corrective Services provides labour and transport to a central location. A combination of community service workers (persons ordered to do a number of hours of community service) and periodic detainees are used. Supervision is provided by the Department of Corrective Services if the workers involved are periodic detention detainees. The Department also keeps good documentation to support the project that is useful for assessment of the program.

 

The Department assesses all offenders in the program to determine their suitability for certain types of work. The availability of offenders to participate in the program will vary and is determined on a project-by-project basis. Periodic detainees are available for two days per week either on Thursday/Friday or Saturday/Sunday. These workers are transported from Silverwater Periodic Detention Facility. At a central location they collect the appropriate equipment and a list of graffiti removal jobs to be removed before proceeding. Community Service workers can arrange to meet at a central location from where they join a team to begin the scheduled program for that day.

 

Work for the Dole programs are run on a 26-week basis, with applications submitted to the Federal Government department responsible for approval. These programs must include a training component, as it is the intention that participants will receive future employment skills. Supervision is provided as part of the scheme but involves close liaison with Council to determine specific projects.

 

Cost:

 

The initial establishment cost of the project was $180,000. An exact breakdown of these costs was not available to Council, although it is known to include purchase of equipment, staff time, and training for workers.

 

The project is now  claimed to be in a maintenance phase. Last financial year the cost of the entire program to Council, as reported by the project manager, was $14,000. This does not include any asset costs incurred in previous years. However, anecdotal evidences suggest that the costs are higher that reported. Primarily the cost to Council is the project manager’s time , cost of removal material and database upkeep. Council sponsors clothes for workers, provides paint and runs three-day training courses. Paint is purchased through a state government contract that makes it available to NSW councils for $6 per litre.

 

Other:

 

Auburn has a high rate of unemployment that translates into a large number of local people being available for the Work for the Dole Scheme. The Department of Corrective Service’s Silverwater periodic detention facility is also located nearby, and therefore provides good access to those resources.

 

Auburn has developed a strong partnership with local Police, partly facilitated by sharing the same office building.

 

Auburn Council employs a low publicity approach to in their graffiti management program. The project coordinator suggests the community needs to be aware of what Council is doing and what they can as residents can do to assist. They believe broad publicity may attract unwanted attention from graffitists. Auburn Council has found that the results of their program have been sufficient publicity and the community has become aware of the program through the work that has been done.

 

3. City of Casey, Victoria

 

Approach:

 

Casey is 40km Southeast of Melbourne and is the largest Council in Victoria. Its population is growing rapidly and has the third highest growth rate of all local government’s in Australia.

 

The City of Casey’s graffiti program began with an audit of graffiti in conjunction with research of Australian and overseas examples of graffiti programs. Casey’s own program was established in 2002.

 

The graffiti management program includes a graffiti hotline and a free council wide removal program outsourced to private contractors. Under the contract the contractor is responsible for keeping a record of tags before removal, communicating with the Police and liaising with other stakeholders. About half of a full-time council employee is involved in contract management. Graffiti removal is free to private property owners but consent to remove must be given. A tag register has also been set up and is used as evidence to prosecute offenders.

 

City of Casey is the first council to introduce a local law to address graffiti issues. This law includes provisions regarding the defacing property, possession of graffiti implements (spray cans and the like) and a prohibition on the sale of spray paint (restricted public access). It should be pointed out that unlike council’s in Victoria, council’s in NSW have no corresponding power to make subsidiary legislation.

 

The program has an educational component targeting year 5 and 8 students.

 

Cost:

 

Casey has a budget allocation of $300,000 per annum to run their graffiti program. This included an initial clean-up of graffiti council wide.

 

4. City of Sydney, NSW

 

Approach:

 

City of Sydney awarded a contract for citywide graffiti removal in October 2002. The contractor is responsible for graffiti removal on both public property and private property. Where the contractor needs to enter private property to remove graffiti consent is required.

 

Graffiti hotspots have been identified and are surveyed every 24 hours for graffiti. All other areas of the City are surveyed at least once every 5 days. The contractor must then remove the graffiti with 24 hours. The contractor is required to keep records of all graffiti removed and provide a monthly report to Council’s contract manager.

 

At present the city is removing 3000 to 4000 items of graffiti per month.

 

City of Sydney operates a citycare hotline where residents and visitors to the City can report issues including graffiti.

 

Cost:

 

For the first 7 months (to June 2003) of the contract Sydney City’s expenditure was approximately $1.4 million. $1.7 million has been allocated to run the program for the current financial year.

 

Other:

 

The contract also includes the removal of billposters from public property. Particular focus is given to the entrances to the city and other high visibility areas.

 

Options for Randwick

 

To get a clear understanding of the size and nature of graffiti vandalism in Randwick and how many groups are involved in this activity, as well as the cost of cleaning the existing graffiti and keeping the city graffiti free, Council has commissioned a graffiti audit across the city. The audit results will create a solid baseline of information that will help in developing an appropriate graffiti management program.

 

Possible options for managing graffiti vandalism are analysed below.

 

1. Status Quo

 

The status quo, as described earlier in this report, is maintained.

 

Advantage

 

No specific council resources have been allocated to deal with graffiti and therefore no direct cost is incurred. A contractor managed by Council’s maintenance team generally carries out the removal work.

 

Disadvantage

 

No proper procedure is in place for spotting and quick removal of graffiti and no coordination among graffiti removal, education and enforcement. As a result no reduction in graffiti has been achieved.

 

Cost

 

As mentioned previously the total cost of graffiti removal is over $80,000 per year coming out of council’s asset maintenance programs.

 

2. Council funded Graffiti management program

 

Similar to the City of Sydney and City of Casey program, Council develops a multi-faceted graffiti management program. As experts see rapid removal of graffiti as the best tool for graffiti control, this program will include rapid removal of graffiti from public and private property with the owner’s consent. Under this program, a performance based contract document will be developed to achieve consistent and sustainable graffiti control outcomes. The contract will be let in accordance with Council’s purchasing policy.

 

The contract will be developed to incorporate a multi-faceted approach to graffiti management. The tasks allocated to the contractor could include regular patrolling of the city, recording of graffiti incidences in a database, communicating with the Police, liaising with other stakeholders and rapid removal of graffiti.

Residents can be encouraged to report graffiti incidents through Council’s call centre where requests can then be logged with the contractor for timely actioning. Residents can also supply photos of the graffiti to be included in Council’s database as prescribed in resolution (h).

 

In addition Council’s planning department will incorporate graffiti prevention through design principles into Council’s development guidelines and asset management programs. Information on graffiti management can also be delivered to residents to raise awareness of how they might discourage graffiti in accordance with resolution (i).

 

Advantage

 

A council funded program that out sources graffiti removal work to a private contractor will allow Council to set and enforce appropriate performance targets through a performance based contract. This will allow Council to design a proactive program with rapid removal features, which is accepted by experts as one of the most effective methods to reduce the incidence of graffiti.

 

Current graffiti control best practice dictates that the graffiti reduction initiatives, once started, must proceed vigilantly without stoppage. This continuity of service is ensured in this option. 

 

Also, a contract price that is pegged to the actual amount of graffiti removed should see gradual reduction in graffiti removal costs over time, as the incidence of graffiti is anticipated to decrease.

 

The above approach has the advantage of being flexible enough to incorporate other features into it such as using the contractors to remove billposters as they target and remove graffiti. Also, as is the case in the City of Gosnells, education and ‘free labour’ features can be built into it through getting the contractor to supervise and utilise periodic detainees or juvenile offenders, if available, for a portion of the work.

 

Disadvantage

 

Ratepayers will have to bear the total cost of this program.

 

Cost

 

The cost of this program will be approximately $200,000 per year (a preliminary estimate) plus the cost of contract management. It is envisaged this will decrease as the amount of graffiti is reduced. Because the community will be benefited as a whole, the program should be funded from the general rates.

 

3. Graffiti management program supported by other organizations

 

Similar to Auburn City, Randwick develops a special project with partnership arrangements with the Department of Corrective Services or other ‘free’ labour sources. This will require negotiations with the potential partners who might be involved. Project arrangements will need to be renewed regularly as they are provided on one-off project basis.

 

For such projects, the Department of Corrective Services supports with resources available under ‘periodic detention’ and ‘community service – offenders ordered to do community work’ schemes. Success of such projects depends on availability of resources locally. Supervision, transport, equipment and training must be provided and can be negotiated between the Council and the Department of Corrective Services.

 

Other sources of ‘no cost’ labour (Government programs or through the private sector) may also need to be sort to make up any short fall in labour supplied by the Department of Corrective Services.

 

This project will require a dedicated full-time project manager to complete the negotiation and establish the program, as was the case in Auburn’s experience. This requirement would be reduced with the success of the program.

 

The other facets of Council’s graffiti control program as outlined in Council’s resolution can be incorporated into this graffiti management option.

 

Advantages

 

Potentially cheaper to Council as resources are provided by the Department of Corrective Services or other ‘free labour’ source.

 

Disadvantages

 

Sufficient resources may not be made available for Randwick from the Department of Corrective Services, to be able to deliver the expected outcomes. This uncertainty as to resources being made available means that it would be difficult to anticipate and put in place a long-term rapid removal strategy, which experts agree must underpin any effective response strategy. External factors rather than Council’s commitment will influence the outcome of this program.

 

Further, the Randwick community may not feel comfortable to see people under periodic detention working on their properties. There can be a perception by the public of putting public safety and security at risk to save money.

 

Also, clear contract/project specifications may not be able to be established to the standard expected by the community. There is a risk of not establishing agreed programs with the potential partners, which will then require other contract arrangements to be made for removal of graffiti.

 

Cost

 

This option would be relatively inexpensive as it saves on direct labour costs, however there would be substantial set-up costs. In Auburn’s case this was approximately $180,000. There is potential for higher administration costs in coordinating the activities between the different organisations involved. If continuity of the partnership program breaks down additional costs will be incurred to make alternative arrangements.

 

Graffiti Database

 

A service that is available to Council that could be incorporated into any of the options discussed above is membership with the Australian Graffiti Register. This is an internet based graffiti database being promoted to users Australia wide. This system would allow Council authorised users to input graffiti incident information including photographs. Daily worksheets can then be prepared based on the information provided. The contractor/Council staff can then enter clean-up actions. The information is retained and can be searched for a variety of purposes. This could include providing Police with access  to the log of incidents for use in prosecution. The benefit of an internet-based database is that authorised users can access the information from multiple locations.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Graffiti is a very complex social issue and requires a multi-faceted and localised solution. The reducing of the incidence of graffiti rather than its eradication is a more realistic.

 

Rapid removal of graffiti is widely accepted as the key to success in any graffiti management program. What success a graffiti control program can bring depends very much on the social, political and economic environment and the geographical location of a local authority.

 

Given the fact that Randwick’s unemployment rate is reasonably low and there is no periodic detention facility nearby, maintaining a graffiti management program supported by other organizations would be a challenge and may not be successful. Any initial clean up of graffiti has to be followed by a permanent monitoring and rapid removal programme. A graffiti programme that is founded on labour supplied by external organizations without any incentive or obligation to maintain a regular supply is therefore risky. Any cost saving and positive outcome that is achieved while the program is in place, can be quickly and easily undone by circumstances outside Council’s control.

 

A Council funded and comprehensive graffiti management program with outsourced services, similar to Casey Council and City of Sydney appears to be the most suitable option for Randwick City Council. This option will ensure a timely, reliable and effective result with a guaranteed outcome.

 

There are no funds allocated for graffiti management in Council’s 2003/04 budgets. If this issue is to be addressed effectively, it is important that an adequate budget is allocated for management of graffiti in Randwick.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a.         Note the report including the programs used in the City of Casey, City of Sydney, City of Gosnells and Auburn City for graffiti control;

 

b.         Authorise Council officers to develop and implement a Council funded multi-faceted program including outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services; and

 

c.         Officers identify funding for implementation of the program within the existing budget through reprioritisation of other activities.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 

Nil

 

 

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


Director Asset & Infrastructure Services'

Report 53/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

PACIFIC SQUARE PROJECT, MAROUBRA CONSTRUCTION HOURS AT ANZAC PARADE CAR PARK

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5002

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 22nd July 2003 considered the Pacific Square Development Traffic Management Plan for Stormwater and Sewer Diversion Works and resolved that the application by the Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited be approved subject to various conditions.

 

The following conditions of Council’s approval related to works at the Anzac Parade Car Park area: -

 

Condition A.3:

 

“The construction hours for works in Walsh Avenue, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road shall be limited to during 7:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm Saturday with the exception of works at the Anzac Parade car park area which shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00am and 12:00 midnight Monday to Saturday.”

 

Condition B:

 

“That Council impose a penalty of $5000.00 per week for every week or part thereof exceeding the absolute stipulated seven-week duration of the closure of the Anzac Parade central island car park.  The seven-week period shall include all allowances for delay such as inclement weather.”

 

By letter dated 31 July 2003 (copy attached), Abigroup Contractors Pty. Ltd. was advised of Council’s decision.

 

The rationale behind Condition B was that Council was greatly concerned at the potential impact of the loss of Anzac Parade central island parking area on the adjoining businesses.  For this purpose Council permitted construction hours at the car park area to be extended from 6:00am to 12:00 midnight Monday to Saturday to limit construction duration to only 7 weeks.

 

By letter dated 15 September 2003, Mr Stephen Williams, Project Director, Abigroup Contractors Pty. Ltd. has made the following representation: -

 

“We refer to point B of your letter of 31st July 2003 which refers to the imposition of a $5000.00 fine if works extend beyond a seven week construction period.

 

The seven-week construction period was based on working from 6 am until midnight Monday to Saturday.  At the request of Council, Abigroup were asked to do an acoustic survey of the current environment and the report on the likely impact that the works would have.  This request was complied with but Council officers have expressed concern over the works continuing until midnight.  As such, we have only been working until approximately 7:30pm.

 

Whilst we continue to make all endeavours to complete the works in the stipulated period, it is possible that works will not be fully complete at the end of the seven weeks due to reduced working hours.

 

We would appreciate your consideration of the reduced working hours as a mitigating factor should works proceed beyond the seven week time period.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Abigroup in their original submission requested the closure of the car park area for a period of 9 weeks.

 

However, following discussions with Council officers, the contractor submitted two construction options for Council’s consideration:

 

Option A – Pipe jacking and restricting storage areas:

 

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

 

Option B – Extended hours of work:

 

This option would cause complete closure of the car park area for construction duration of only 7 weeks, and to achieve this contractors requested that the approved hours of work be extended from 6:00am to 12:00 midnight Monday to Saturday.

 

It should be noted that prior to granting approval to commence these works, Council caused a public notice in the Southern Courier and a letter box drop to adjoining properties advising that the car park area would be closed for a period of 7 weeks and the construction hours at the car park area will be from 6:00am to 12:00 midnight Monday to Saturday.

 

The construction hours for other parts of the work in Walsh Avenue, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road are limited to during 7:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday and the contractor has indicated that works in those areas will be completed within a 12 week period. The works, including at the car park area, commenced on 28 August 2003.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that measures aimed at protecting the residential amenity in the vicinity of the construction works would warrant limiting the construction hours at the car park area to 7:30pm.

 

Accordingly, Council should consider extending the car park area construction period to 9 weeks as was originally proposed in the applicant’s submission.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

Condition B of Council’s consent dated 22 July 2003 concerning the stormwater and sewer mains diversion works being carried out by Abigroup Contractors Pty. Ltd. for the Pacific Square Development Project be amended as:

 

“Council impose a penalty of $5000.00 per week for every week or part thereof exceeding nine-week duration of the closure of the Anzac Parade central island car park”.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of Council’s letter to Abigroup.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 


 

 

KK:JB             98/S/5002

(Contact Officer:     Ken Kanagarajan - 9399 0927)

 

31 July 2003

 

 

Mr Stephen Williams

Project Director

Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd

25-29 Bridge Street

PYMBLE      NSW     2073

 

 

Dear Mr Williams

 

Maroubra Mall - Traffic Management Plan for Stormwater and Sewer Diversion Works

 

Council, at its meeting held on 22 July 2003, resolved:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For any further information please contact Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer, Mr Ken Kanagarajan, on  9399 0927.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Gordon Messiter

GENERAL MANAGER

Per:     

G:\ENG\WP\TRAF\kk0307-31.1.doc

 

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 25/2003

 

SUBJECT:

SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION - 40 COOGEE BAY ROAD, RANDWICK AND 56 CARR STREET, COOGEE

 

DATE:

17 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2738 xr P/003225 xr P/002127

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Two applications, under Section 12 of the Local Government Act, for access to information on the Council’s files were received from Mr P. Athens in respect to 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick and from Mr. C. Kotis in relation to 56 Carr Street, Coogee. Access to documents was restricted in these cases as it was considered that allowing their inspection would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

(ii)        to reveal a trade secret.

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

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

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

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

(c)        trade secrets,

(d)        a matter the disclosure of which would:

(i)         constitute an offence against an Act, or

(ii)        found an action for breach of confidence.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

In his particular application under Section 12 of the Act, Mr. P. Athens sought access to “all my documents held by Council about Peter Athens and my Business Athens Holdings Pty Ltd T/A The Aegean Lodge 40 Coogee Bay Road ASAP.”

 

Mr Kotis, in his Section 12 application under the Act, sought access to “evidence held by Council as to the reason the Order was given i.e. housekeeping report and other documents held to prove order was given correctly” in relation to 56 Carr Street, Coogee.

 

The Council’s Public Officer, Mr Peter Smith, in accordance with Section 343(1) of the Local Government Act, has the responsibility of assisting people to gain access to public documents of the Council, and he dealt with these applications.  He considered that it would be inappropriate to grant access to all of the documents requested under Section 12 of the Act by Mr Athens, as, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest in that legal proceedings between the Council, Mr Athens and Athens Holdings Pty Ltd in relation to the property at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick were immediately contemplated.  Mr Athens was, however, granted access to other documents on Council’s files which did not fall into this category.  Accordingly, Mr Athens was advised by the Public Officer, by letter dated 11th September, 2003, that the application for access to all of the documents sought was refused in part for the aforementioned reason.

In respect to the Section 12 application by Mr Kotis, the Public Officer considered that access to the documents sought would be inappropriate and would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest in that legal proceedings were current between the Council and the Owners of Strata Plan 49851 (56 Carr Street, Coogee) and that the documents requested were a component of those proceedings and led to the commencement of litigation.  Mr Kotis was advised by the Public Officer, by letter also dated 11th September, 2003 that his application for access was refused for the reasons outlined in this report.

 

Both Mr Kotis and Mr Athens were advised in those letters of their rights of review as detailed in Section 12A (4) of the Act, namely:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the contents of the Director Governance, Management and Information Services Report 25/2003 be received and noted;

 

(b)        That the Council endorse the restrictions placed by the Public Officer on access to documents which were the subject of the Section 12 applications submitted by Mr P. Athens relating to 40 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick and Mr C. Kotis regarding 56 Carr Street, Coogee for the reasons detailed in the Director’s Report; and

 

(c)        That it will be noted that both Mr P. Athens and Mr C. Kotis can still exercise their rights to request reviews by Council on the restriction to access being lifted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 72/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

199-203a Malabar Road, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/370/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No D/370/03 to use the above premises as a Veterinary Surgery 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 16 September, 2003

2. A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/370/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 Use premises as a Veterinary Surgery

PROPERTY:

 199-203a Malabar Road, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 C Godfrey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillor’s Matson, Greenwood & Backes.

 

The application seeks consent to use the existing premises for the purpose of a Veterinary Surgery.

 

The main issues are the potential impact upon the adjoining and nearby residents due the intensification of the use of the premises and any additional demand for parking or traffic movements which may be generated by the proposed development.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the change of use of the existing shop and dwelling to a Veterinary Surgery. The Veterinary Surgery currently operates from premises in Dolphin Street Coogee where it has operated for over 22 years servicing over 7 000 local clients some of whom live in the immediate locality.

 

The proposed change of use will require a fit out of the premises to provide for a waiting and reception room, three consulting rooms, staff room and dog accommodation at ground level and conversion of the upper floor residential portion of the building into a surgery, x ray room, treatment area and cat accommodation. The proposed works do not include any additional floor area to the building.

 

The Veterinary Surgery will employ 1 Veterinarian, 4 full time staff and some additional casual staff and will operate 8.00am to 7.30pm Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 2.00pm on Saturday and 9.00am to 12.00pm on Sunday. There is to be no holding of animals overnight or boarding of animals on site.

 

The premises contains one off street car space to the rear of the premises with vehicular access from Denning Street.

 

The application also proposes signage to the windows on either side of the main door at ground level and beneath the awning on the Malabar Road frontage.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is located on the northern corner of Malabar Road and Denning Street South Coogee. The site presently contains a two storey building with commercial uses at ground level and residences above. The existing commercial uses include a screen printing business and pest control company within the northern portion of the building, the portion of the building which is the subject of this application had until recently been used as a real estate office and is currently vacant. 

 

On the opposite side of Malabar Road there are a mixture of single and two storey dwellings and multi unit housing development and immediately to the north there is a multi unit housing development. The character of Denning Street to the east constitutes a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and low scale multi unit housing development.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

4.1  Objections

 

T Storm 1 Cuzco Street Coogee

 

-the increased traffic which may result from the use of the premises will result in a hazard to the intersection of Malabar Road, Denning and Cuzco Streets.

-there is insufficient parking to serve the business.

-pedestrians crossing the road already have difficulties.

-this type of business is inappropriate in a residential area.

 

E Redmond 3 Cuzco Street Coogee

 

- the increased traffic which may result from the use of the premises will result in a hazard to the intersection of Malabar Road, Denning and Cuzco Streets.

-there is insufficient parking to serve the business.

 

F McGill Grace 5-7 Cuzco Street Coogee

 

-the proposed use will downgrade the local environment.

-the use of the rear section of the building fronting Denning Street will diminish the residential character of the locality.

-the proposed use is inconsistent with a local business zone.

-the high turnover of customers will result in increased traffic and demand for parking.

-the likelihood of illegal and hazardous parking is a reality.

-this section of Denning Street and the intersection of Malabar Road is already dangerous and additional traffic will worsen this.

-there is insufficient parking available.

 

H Ternen 10 Cuzco Street Cooge

 

-the existing intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road is already dangerous and any additional traffic as a result of the development will only increase danger particularly to pedestrians.

-there is no safe parking available for customers.

-the use of the whole premises will have an impact upon the residential nature of the locality.

-the use may result in a noise nuisance from the animals.

 

W & D Tilley 6 Cuzco Street Coogee

 

-the proposed use will attract a large number of customers which will increase the already congested local traffic conditions and parking availability.

-the application fails to satisfy a number of provisions of Section 79C of the EPA Act.

-the removal of waste and hours of operation will have an impact upon the local residents.

- a traffic analysis should be undertaken to assess the impact of proposed use.

-there is insufficient parking at the premises.

-the use of the rear of the premises will impact upon the character of the neighbourhood in Denning Street in that the previous uses have all been located in the portion of the building fronting Malabar Road.

 

P Taylor 8 Cuzco Street Coogee

 

-the intersection of Denning, Cuzco Streets and Malabar Road is already very dangerous and the generation of additional traffic would increase the risks at this intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians.

-there is no available parking on site.

-the use of the whole premises will have an impact upon the residential nature of the locality.

 

R & J Gadge 57 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the majority of the surrounding development is residential.

-the proposed hours of operation are too long.

-the use is not a local business use as defined in the 3B zoning.

-there is insufficient parking available.

-the existing intersection is already very dangerous.

-animal establishments are prohibited in this zone.

-the use fails to satisfy Section 79C of the EPA Act and is not in the public interest.

-the other business uses adjacent to the premises have no impact upon the amenity of the locality.

 

D Chew 61 Denning Street Coogee ( 2 Submissions )

 

-there is already limited parking in Denning Street and customers will lead to further congestion.

-increased traffic is not appropriate in a residential area.

-any increased traffic may increase the incidence of traffic or pedestrian accidents.

-the nature of the street will be altered.

-there are already dangerous driving conditions at this intersection.

 

R Brennan 63 Denning Street Coogee

 

-there is already a shortage of street parking in Denning Street and Malabar Road and the use of the premises will further reduce off street parking.

-the corner of Denning Street and Malabar Road is already very dangerous due to the width of the road, the ridge and speed of vehicles and increasing street parking in this area will only increase the likelihood of an accident.

 

R & H Carney 67 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the use of the premises will not constitute a local business.

-the previous business use of the ground floor faced Malabar Road not Denning Street which resulted in minimal impact upon residents of Denning Street.

-the use will generate significant traffic to the area which will result in a detrimental impact upon the residents.

-the intersection of Denning, Cuzco Streets and Malabar Road is already very dangerous and the generation of additional traffic would increase the risks at this intersection.

-business customers should not park in Denning Street because any additional parking in Denning Street may increase the degree of additional illegal parking.

-the peace and quiet of the area may be disturbed by animals housed at the premises.

-the removal of animal waste will cause a further hazard in the street.

 

P Emanuele 69 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the use of the whole building will result in an adverse impact upon the residents of Denning Street as previously only the section of the building fronting Malabar Road was used.

-the extent of the use does not constitute a local business and should be located within a larger business area.

-the use will generate additional traffic which is inappropriate in a residential area.

-business customers should not walk along or park in Denning Street.

-the business may attract customers from other areas.

-this section of Denning Street is already dangerous with respect to traffic and the use may increase this.

-the use may increase illegal parking in Denning Street.

-the premises is within the foreshore scenic protection area and this area should be protected and traffic minimised.

-the use may result in a noise nuisance.

-the removal of waste may result in difficulties.

-the proposed use fails to satisfy the criteria of Section 79C of the EPA Act.

 

J Cole 71 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the nature of the use is not a local business and should be located to a more appropriate larger business area.

-the change of use for the whole building as a business will adversely impact the character of Denning Street.

-the use of the premises will generate increased traffic in the area.

-Denning Street is an already dangerous street, with the three way intersection with Malabar Road and Cuzco Street adding to the dangerous conditions.

-there is insufficient parking available, and the already difficult parking in the street will be increased.

-traffic movements in this section of Denning Street may result in vehicular accidents.

-the likelihood of noise from the animals will have an impact upon the residents.

-the use of a specialised vehicle to remove animal waste will have an additional impact upon traffic in Denning Street.

 

P & B Woodger of behalf of J Cole 73 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the nature of the use does not constitute a local business.

-the change of use of the whole building as a business will affect the residential character of Denning Street.

-the use will generate significant traffic in Denning Street.

-the existing intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road is already dangerous.

-there is already insufficient parking in Denning Street and the proposed use will further impact upon street parking.

-traffic movements in Denning Street may result in accidents.

-the housing of animals on site may create excess noise and affect the living standards of the local residents.

 

C Angel 1/75 Denning Street Coogee ( 2 Submissions )

 

-Denning Street is already very dangerous with respect to traffic issues.

-parking will be made more difficult.

-the operating hours of the surgery will increase traffic.

-the footpath and front lawns are already fouled by animal droppings.

-barking from animals will result in a noise nuisance.

-there will be an impact upon the value of their dwellings.

-the use will not be in the best interests of the local residents.

-the suggested area for the surgery is too small.

 

P & O Cavan 2/75 Denning Street Coogee ( 2 submissions )

 

-the use will result in an adverse impact upon the residential area.

-there will be increased traffic and parking problems.

-parking is already very restricted in both Malabar Road and Denning Street.

-the number of vehicles already illegally parked in Denning Street will increase.

-the housing of animals overnight may lead to a noise nuisance.

-the proposed use is out of character with the locality.

-animal establishments are prohibited in a 3B zone.

 

R Gilbert 77 Denning Street Coogee ( 3 submissions )

 

-potential nuisance arising from the housing of animals at the premises.

-noise nuisance from the use of the premises.

-there will be increased vehicular traffic and illegal street parking.

-the increased use of the intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road may increase the dangerous nature of the intersection.

-the under awning sign will be visually obtrusive.

-the use does not fall within the definition of a local business use.

-there is no way to restrict illegal parking.

-the use of the whole building will remove the upper level residential use.

 

D MacAlpine & M Lawrence 79 Denning Street Coogee ( 9 submissions including proposed conditions of consent to address residents concerns )

 

-the increased use of the intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road may increase the dangerous nature of the intersection.

-there is already insufficient street parking in Denning Street and increased street parking may lead to traffic accidents.

-the accommodation of animals at these premises may result in noise nuisance to local residents.

-the removal of animal wastes from the premises will increase traffic movements and nuisance from odours.

-the nature of the proposed use is too large to be considered a local business.

-the use of the whole building will increase the impacts upon residents of Denning Street.

-there is no community benefit from the proposed use.

-the use of the premises does not satisfy the objectives of the LEP which requires that any development in a 3B zone minimises impacts upon nearby residents, and the use of the premises as an animal establishment may be considered a potentially offensive industry.

-the previous use as a local business did not have any impact upon local residents.

-the use will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the local residents with respect to safety, noise, odours, traffic congestion and likely loss of value of dwellings.

-hours of trading proposed are too long.

-there are other options for the use of this site.

-the hours of operation will conflict with the residential nature of the locality.

-the dimensions of the under awning sign are excessive.

 

Matters which should be addressed as specific conditions of consent.

 

-access to the rear balcony fronting Denning Street must be permanently sealed off.

-the existing building should be the subject of a façade upgrade to improve the appearance of the building, and any upgrading should ensure that the building is painted in muted colours so as to not detract from the residential nature of the locality.

-a mature street tree should be planted on the Denning Street footpath.

-the adjacent green space should not be used by customers or animals.

-the entry door should be moved to the Malabar Road alignment.

-all deliveries and removal of wastes should be from the Malabar Road alignment.

-all wastes must be stored within the building prior to removal.

-Council should ensure that the proposed hours of operation cannot be extended at a subsequent time.

 

Legal advice from James Hannaford Lawyers level 8 B9 Margaret Street Sydney 2000 at the request of D MacAlpine and M Lawrence

 

-the main issues are the intensification of the use in a local business zone, traffic safety and car parking concerns and amenity impacts upon local residents.

-the proposed use and size of the operation is totally unsuitable to a 3B local business zone and would be more suited to a general business zone.

-the proposed business is not a local business in the ordinary and sensible meaning of the term in that the hours of operation, number of staff and consulting rooms is consistent with a large scale veterinary practice.

-the proposal is significantly in breach of Council’s Car Parking DCP and the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development.

 

R & F Scardino 81 Denning Street Coogee ( 2 submissions )

 

-the use will attract a lot of customers which will have an impact upon the quality and character of the locality.

-the development will increase traffic and parking requirements in the streets.

-the use should be at a larger commercial centre and not in a residential area.

-the use does not meet the objectives of the 3B zone.

-there will be a noise nuisance resulting from the housing of animals on site.

-there are concerns regarding smell from animal waste and the removal of animal waste.

-the increased use of the intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road may increase the dangerous nature of the intersection and also the dip in Denning Street.

-the proposal will not benefit the community.

-the proposed use fails to satisfy the criteria of Section 79C of the EPA Act.

 

E Dowling 83 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the development will increase traffic and parking requirements in the locality.

-the existing intersection is already dangerous.

-Denning Street is insufficient in width to accommodate the additional parking and traffic.

-the use is not a local business and should be located at a larger shopping centre.

-the change of use to utilise the rear section of the building will increase impacts of residents of Denning Street.

-there will be additional noise resulting from the housing of animals on site.

-there are concerns regarding smell from animal waste and the removal of animal waste.

-the proposed use will not be in the public interest.

 

P White 3/90 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the change of use will alter the existing residential character of the area.

-the noise from animals and removal of waste will have a detrimental impact upon the environment.

-there is no available parking and the additional parking required will have an impact upon the residents in Denning Street.

-the intersection adjacent to the proposed use is already dangerous and additional vehicular movement may increase this.

 

I Sills 92 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the use of the premises as a veterinary surgery is prohibited under a 3B zone.

-no evidence has been provided to support the statement that there will not be any adverse impact upon the neighbouring residential areas.

-there is insufficient parking available both at the premises and on street.

 

T Pirola 2/92 Denning Street Coogee

 

-there is insufficient parking in Denning Street already.

-the increased use of the intersection of Denning Street, Cuzco Street and Malabar Road may increase the dangerous nature of the intersection and also the dip in Denning Street.

-there will be additional noise resulting from the housing of animals on site.

-the change of use of the building will impact upon the residential nature of Denning Street.

 

F Shapiro 27 Nymboida Street Coogee

 

-the proposed business will result in a significant number of customers being attracted to the area.

-the site is not suitable for a business use given the number of customers which will be attracted and the insufficient parking available.

-there is insufficient parking adjacent in Malabar Road and vehicles will be parking in Denning Street.

-the three way intersection adjacent to the site is already dangerous and the proposed use would increase the dangerous nature of this intersection.

-there will be an increased number of vehicles parking in Denning Street.

-the previous use as a small mixed business did not have any impact upon the adjoining residents.

-the use will not comply with the Local Business zoning.

 

J Eguia Alfabet Screenprinting 201 Malabar Road Coogee

 

-the existing parking in this area is already congested.

-there may be a nuisance with respect to noise from the animals housed at the premises.

-the removal of waste may be a problem with respect to hygiene and odours.

-the use of the whole premises as a business will have an impact upon the residents in Denning Street.

-the existing road conditions are not safe and more traffic will make it worse.

 

M Williams 1/204 Malabar Road Coogee

 

-the use will generate additional traffic in the area.

-the use will attract people who are not residents.

-additional vehicles will have an impact upon road safety.

-there is already problems with street parking and the existing bus stops have already restricted parking adjacent to these premises.

-the proposed use is not appropriate in that it is not a local type of business.

-any signage may be intrusive and flashing.

-the application does not consider the impact upon the neighbouring residents.

 

J Nance & P Simpson 11 Seaside Parade Coogee

 

-the development will increase traffic and parking requirements in the locality.

-the existing intersection is already dangerous for both vehicles and pedestrians.

 

G Short Principal of South Coogee Public School Moverly Road Coogee

 

-there are already concerns with respect to pedestrians crossing Malabar Road and the proposed use may raise the risk to pedestrians.

 

Burrell Threlfo Pagan Pty Ltd, 48 Vicotoria Road Rozelle for the owners of 79 Denning Street Coogee ( 2 submissions )

 

The application should be refused in the grounds that;

 

-it does not comply with the parking DCP.

-it represents an unsatisfactory intensification of the use of the premises in a locality where the on street parking arrangements are not suitable to accommodate overflow parking

-the use is not consistent with the objectives of the local business zone.

-the peak period of the business operation is generally outside normal business hours which may be problematic in a local business zone.

-the use will generate a demand for 7 parking spaces.

-the context of the physical limitations of Denning Street make the proposed use a marginal proposition.

 

Comment:

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed use will intensify the use of the existing premises within the local business zone and as a result there will be an impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and residents in terms of parking demand, traffic movement and noise associated with the use of the premises. The relevant consideration is whether those additional impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding residents and locality are reasonable and the objectives of the LEP are satisfied by minimising the impact of the development upon adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The primary issues in relation to submissions received from local residents is the concern that the use of the premises as a veterinary clinic does not satisfy the objectives of the Local Business 3B zone and will generate significant additional parking demand and traffic movements in the immediate locality.

 

Under the definitions of the LEP 1998 “business premises” is defined as “a building or place in which there is carried on a occupation, profession or trade which may or may not provide a service or goods directly or regularly to the public…”. It is clear to say that the proposed use is consistent with this definition and will be “local” in both its nature and scale since most veterinary clinics service the immediate locality. The nature of the use proposed is not increasing the existing floor space of the property and although it will incorporate the first floor level, is not considered to be much larger than an average Veterinary clinic and would be a similar scale to uses such as  a medical centre (which is also a permissible use with consent).

 

Local is also defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as “pertaining to a town or a small local district rather than the entire state or country”. Having regard to that definition it could reasonably be considered that this Veterinary Surgery known as “Coogee Veterinary Hospital” located in Malabar Road South Coogee could be regarded as a Local Business for the purpose of the LEP. The applicant has also provided supporting information detailing the local nature of the business which includes more than 30 clients which live in Denning Street and it is understood that applicants practice at Dolphin Street Coogee has an existing large client base in the Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra area.

 

It should also be noted that development for the purposes as a veterinary surgery is not prohibited under of Clause 14 of the LEP in relation to Local Business Zones.

 

With regard to parking and traffic issues, Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that there are ample street parking spaces within 100m of the site and that in his opinion the residents of Denning Street will not be adversely affected by this development. It is also noted that Denning Street is the subject of a separate traffic study which has recommended to the Council Traffic Committee that the double centre line be shifted to prevent parking on one side of the street to allow a clear path of vehicular traffic, the implementation of this recommendation has been deferred pending the submission of a joint submission from the local residents.

 

With respect to general amenity issues relating to any potential noise that may be generated by the proposal, the use of the rear upper level balcony, and storage and removal of waste, it is considered that the imposition of suitable conditions could address these concerns and that subject to compliance with conditions there will not be a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the locality. In addition the applicant has also nominated noise attenuation measures such as closing off all windows and installing sound resistant ventilation systems to the animal accommodation area, the use of solid core doors and walls already not sound proofed, and having sound rated gyprock and other sound absorbing materials installed. 

 

Any requirement that the façade of the existing building be altered or that any street planting be carried out as part of the development are not considered to be valid as they do not reasonably relate to the proposed development.

 

5.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer and the following comments have been provided:-

 

Eight (8) car spaces are available across the frontage of the 3 businesses and residence of No. 197 Malabar Rd.

 

The other 2 businesses appear to have a low demand for parking and No. 197 has off-street parking.

 

The western side of Malabar Rd directly opposite the proposed vet has 5 car spaces available, and the properties adjacent these spaces appear to have ample off-street parking.

 

It is considered that the preferred option of motorists using the veterinary surgery would be to park on either side of Malabar Rd, directly outside the vet, with the eastern side the first choice.

 

If no spaces exist on Malabar, spaces in Denning St and then Nymbodia St would be used  (there are ample spaces available within 100m of site).

  

I do not believe that Denning St will be adversely affected by this development, as there are numerous other and more preferable parking options available.

 

It is difficult to comment on exactly what will happen in Denning St given that Council is awaiting correspondence from the residents of Denning St detailing their concerns about speed and potential for accidents, so the existing traffic/parking conditions may change following an investigation - the Traffic Committee recently considered the street and recommended to shift the double centreline of the street in order to ban parking on one side and allow it and a clear lane of travel on the other side. Council is waiting on the residents' joint submission before implementation of the changes.  Having said that, I still do not believe that Denning Street will be adversely affected by the operation of the vet.

 

The proposal has also been referred to the Manager of Health and Building Services for comment and the following comments have been provided;

 

This proposal consists of the conversion of an existing ground floor office and first floor residence for use as a veterinary surgery. The proposal specifically involves the installation of:

 

·          3 consulting rooms

·          cat/dog accommodation (max 6)

·          Surgery/theatre room

·          x-ray facilities

 

The application has stated that it is proposed that the premises will operate during the following hours;

 

·          Monday to Friday: 8am to 7:30pm

·          Saturday: 9am to 2pm

·          Sunday: 9am to 12pm.

 

Acoustics 

 

Although the premises is situated in a Local Business Zone (3B), there are a number of residential premises in close proximity. Residential units are located immediately adjacent to the commercial premises.  It is considered that the proposed hours of operation of the business are reasonable and the business is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearby residents.

 

Should the application be approved, it is recommended that the hours of operation of the business should be limited, to reduce the potential impact upon the amenity of nearby residents, to:

 

Monday to Friday: 8am to 7:30pm

Saturday: 9am to 2pm

Sunday: 9am to 12pm.

 

Waste Disposal

 

Sydney Water was approached to provide advice on the requirements for trade waste licensing of a veterinary surgery. The following information was provided:

 

Veterinary surgeries do not generally require a trade waste agreement. They should however have fixed basket type screens in the floor wastes. The x-ray part of the practise may have all solutions taken off site by a licensed contractor. If however the x-ray facility has wash waters to sewer Sydney Water should be advised of the fact, as the practise will need a Trade Waste agreement.

 

Additional information was supplied by the applicant to Council on Friday 13 June detailing:

 

·          Waste disposal policies are based on compliance with Sydney Water and Veterinary Surgeons Board requirements.

·          Screens and traps are to be installed at the new premises.

·          X-ray waste is collected by a licensed contractor and taken off site for disposal. The contactor will be either Siltech Pty Ltd or Stericorp Ltd.

·          The contractor will also collect and dispose of sharps generated on site.

 

Relevant conditions have been provided by the Manager of Health and Building Services to address these issues.

 

6.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The objectives of Clause 14 of the 3B zone include that opportunities are provided for local businesses and that any impacts upon adjoining and nearby residential zones are minimised.

 

The proposed use of the premises as a Veterinary Surgery will satisfy the overall objectives of the LEP and any impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises will be able to be minimised subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent with respect to noise, storage and removal of wastes and hours of operation.

 

6.1       Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Parking 

 

The building at present contains a commercial component to the ground level and a one bedroom dwelling to the first floor level which under the Parking DCP requires two parking spaces, one each, for both uses.

 

Considering the proposed development, the total floor area of the building is 93sqm, which under the controls of the DCP requires three parking spaces,  calculated at the rate of one space per 40sqm of gross floor area, having a regard to the existing carspace to the rear of the premises there is a parking shortfall of two spaces.

 

As outlined in Section 2.1.2 of the DCP the importance of parking must be kept in perspective in the overall development assessment process. There are circumstances where it is not physically possible due to the constraints of the site to provide additional parking on site, which in this instance is the case with this proposal. It is therefore up to the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed level of parking is adequate and that any deficiencies will not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the locality.

 

To support the parking deficiencies the applicant notes that there is adequate street parking in Denning Street, the site has excellent public transport links which will be utilised by staff, the proposed use is small in scale, the surgery will not attract a lot of patients at the same time in that consultations will be by appointment only, which will control the number of patients at any one time.

 

It is considered that in this instance that the applicant’s argument with respect to parking demand generated by the use has merit. The most important argument is that patient visits will be by appointment only and whilst the business may have a large client base at any one time there may be only one or two patients visiting the premises. There may be an increased demand if animals are collected by their owners on the way home from work, however the applicant states that they will not house at the premises any more than 3 dogs at a time and as such the increased parking demand would not be significant. Also the nature of this use does not require long term parking since it is more reliant on short stay parking since animals will be dropped off and collected in a prompt manner. As such people will be coming and going and would most likely rely on parking along Malabar Road in the first instance.

 

Therefore on balance, it is considered that the proposal will satisfy the objectives of the Parking Development Control Plan and the shortfall of parking is considered to be minor.

 

7.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed use will not result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the local residents in that the proposed hours of operation are reasonable and specific conditions of consent have been recommended to address the disposal of waste generated from the premises, restrict noise levels from the operation of the premises and prohibit the keeping of animals at the premises overnight.    

 

It is considered that subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent that the proposed use of the premises as a Veterinary Surgery will not result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

8.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development to operate a Veterinary Surgery at the premises will not result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residents and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.370/03 for permission to change the use of the existing shop and dwelling at 203A Malabar Road South Coogee into a Veterinary Surgery subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01B to DA05B inclusive, dated April 2003 and received by Council on the 31st July 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 maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

2          The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:-

 

Monday to Friday 8am to 7:30pm

Saturday 9am to 2pm

Sunday 9am to 12pm

 

3          The storage of boxes, cartons, pallets, goods or any other material relating to the operation of the business must be wholly contained within the premises.

 

4          Entry to the premises by patients and for the delivery of any goods is to be from the front alignment of the premises only and no animals are to be exercised in the adjoining open space area.

 

5          Animals are not to be accommodated at the premises overnight or outside the hours of operation of the business.

 

6          A solid core self closing door is to be installed to the upper level rear balcony to minimise any noise nuisance to the adjoining and surrounding premises.

 

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

 

7          Medical wastes must be disposed of by an authorised waste disposal contract and all wastes are to be stored within the confines of the building. Contractor details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority before the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

8          The applicant is advised that it is prohibited to dispose of waste materials in the domestic garbage service.  All waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed service to serve the development are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

9          Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site, post construction.

 

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:

 

10       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14        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.

 

15        Pollution control devices shall be installed and maintained to ensure there will be no water borne pollutants discharging or are likely to discharge into any natural water course or the stormwater or sewerage drainage systems.

 

16        Full details of the proposed pollution control devices to be installed are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 80 A(2)  of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

17        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.

 

18        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.

 

19        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.

 

20        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.

 

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:

 

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

 

22        The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person 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 or, upon finalisation of works if no occupation certificate is issued.

 

23        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.

 

24        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.

 

25        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.

 

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

 

26        The applicant shall meet the full cost, (including signposting), for short term parking restrictions to be installed along the eastern side of Malabar Road, north of Cuzco Street, as determined by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

27        The applicant shall meet the full cost, (including associated signposting), for installation of a pedestrian refuge on Malabar Road, south of Nymboida Street, the final design and location of the pedestrian island to be subject to the approval of the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

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

 

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

 

            Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0924.

29        The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

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.

 

30        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 consideration for service authority assets:

 

31        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 drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

32        All site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter/ Council’s underground drainage system fronting the development site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 73/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

19 Chatham Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

10 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/228/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development No 228/03 for alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit housing building.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 10 September, 2003

2. A4 Configuration plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

10 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D0228/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit housing building

PROPERTY:

 19 Chatham Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 YGSY Pty Ltd C/O SPD Town Planners

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Freda Backes, Murray Matson and Bruce Notley-Smith. The estimated cost of the development is $500,000.

 

The subject site contains an existing four storey multi-unit housing building containing nine units, ground floor parking and a small rear landscaped area. Surrounding and adjacent development consists of single and two storey dwellings and townhouses.

 

The proposed development involves alterations and additions including extending the envelope of the building slightly at the front and rear to increase the size of the existing units, replacing the existing side balconies with new larger balconies with privacy louvres, increasing parking at ground to 11 spaces, new landscaping to the front, rear and side, new front entry and garbage storage area, new side access stairs and new contemporary design treatment to the entire exterior of the building including rendering of brickwork.

 

The original proposal included a roof terrace which has now been deleted.

 

Objections to the proposal raised concerns in respect to increased impact from enlarged balconies, noise, overshadowing, loss of privacy, amenity impacts, excessive floor space, lack of open space, excessive rear section, inappropriate setbacks, and the architectural character of the proposal.

 

The site is located in a 2C Residential zone and is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposal is subject to the provisions of the Development Control Plan (DCP) Multi Unit Housing.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that the impact of the proposed development in terms of noise, overshadowing, additional scale and overlooking is not significant and will not adversely impact upon the adjacent residents. The increase in floor space is not unreasonable and the proposed development will result in improved internal amenity to units, greater off-street parking, a better waste storage area and an appealing contemporary design to the street.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development involves alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit housing building as follows;

 

·    Three additional carparking spaces beneath and within the curtilage of the building at ground level and enclosure of all parking spaces (totalling 11 with the additional 3) with panel lift doors,

·    Enclosure of all south facing balconies increasing the area of bedrooms,

·    Enlargement of existing balconies on the eastern elevation, including movable and fixed louvres (fixed louvres are to the northern most balcony on its north and north-eastern side),

·    Extending the footprint of the building by 1.2m on the southern side (by enclosing balconies) and 2.2m on the north to increase the area of the existing bedrooms at these points resulting in an overall increase in the floor space of all units at each end of the site,

·    New egress lobby to the west of the existing common access stairs, over all three levels;

·    New garbage storage area at front of building,

·    New front entry arrangements and intercom,

·    Extensive landscaping around the site.

 

The original plans contained a large roof deck which has been deleted from the proposal.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Chatham Street midway between St Luke Street and Carrington Road, Randwick. The site is a regular rectangular shaped allotment (14m wide x 36m long) with an area of approximately 502 sq.m. The site contains a four storey multi-unit housing building comprising 9 residential units (6 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 1 bedroom) on levels 1 to 3 and 8 parking spaces, a common laundry area, mail boxes and entry foyer at ground level. Pedestrian and vehicular access is obtained off Chatham Street.

 

Adjacent to the east of the site is a two storey terrace style dwelling. To the west of the site is another two storey dwelling which has a single storey to Chatham Street and a second storey to the rear. At the rear or north of the site is a two storey residential town house complex and a single storey dwelling. Each of the dwellings adjacent to the site have a large rear yard. These yards encircle the rear of the subject site. Development in the area consists predominantly of one and two storey dwelling houses.

 

   

 

     Subject site and adjacent dwellings.       East side of site showing balconies

to be altered.

 

   

 

    Vehicle access on eastern side of site.                       View of western side of site.

 

    

 

View of adjacent dwellings on the northern or rear side of the subject site.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Several previous development applications apply to the subject site. A development application for a residential flat building was approved in 1960 and a strata subdivision of the subject units was approved in 2002.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

The development application has been notified on two occasions and Council has received a number of objections during both exhibition periods.

 

Objections to original proposal:

 

Denis Ryan

15 Chatham Street,

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Rear or northern extension of building alignment is the longest is Chatham Street,

·    There are no other roof decks in the block and the proposal would create a precedent that is out of character with the area,

·    Noise from proposed roof decks,

·    Overlooking and privacy loss created by roof decks,

·    Overdevelopment.

 

Michael and Susan Moddel,

42 Dolphin Street,

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Excessive FSR proposed should not be allowed,

·    Landscaped area reduced to 31.7%,

·    Roofdeck should be removed completely as it affects neighbours privacy,

·    Setbacks do not comply with LEP, particularly the rear setback,

·    Timber shutters are not fixed and enable the unit dwellers to have privacy but not neighbours.

 

W J and M J Rooney

12 Chatham Street,

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Proposed roof decks will create an invasion of privacy and create additional noise impacts,

 

Nancy Choy

28 Chatham Street

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Proposed  roof deck will create privacy loss and is out of character for the area,

 

Renny and Alex Finch

18 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Objection to roof deck, concern about noise pollution, parties and privacy.

 

J Kelly

38 Dolphin Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Object to roof deck on grounds of privacy and noise,

 

Helen Hayes

      6 Chatham Street,

      Randwick 2031

 

·    Object to roof terrace,

 

D Clifton

14 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Object to roof terrace and entertainment area,

 

Maralyn Zeilic

10 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Objection to roof deck on grounds of privacy and is out of character,

 

Peter Keleman

16 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Object to roof deck – privacy impacts, noise.

 

Paul Pavlov

21 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Loss of privacy due to increased balcony sizes,

·    Increase in size of building at rear increases density and overshadowing,

 

Kim Burrell

BTP Town Planning Consultants,

48 Victoria Road,

Rozelle NSW 2039

 

·    Clients concerns relate to impacts relating to the extension of balconies creating overlooking and additional bulk,

·    Refutes the SEPP 1 objection of the applicants, particularly with respect to landscaping, visual balance with built forms, poor usability of ground open space, lack of privacy, bulk, scale, size, inconsistency with any other built forms, amongst other matters.

 

Tom McGinness & Kathleen Phillips

36 Dolphin Street,

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Objection to rear extension and roof terrace,

·    Excess floor space,

·    Loss of privacy and increased overshadowing to adjacent properties,

·    Noise from roof terrace and visual pollution.

 

Mr G Savva

26 Chatham Street

Randwick NSW 2031

 

·    Rooftop will create additional noise,

·    Structure will become more dominant in streetscape,

·    Loss of privacy,

·    Reduces property values,

 

Stephen Symmonds

23 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Larger balconies will have a greater intrusive and overlooking impact,

·    Roof terrace creates overlooking and noise,

·    Garages increase oppressive bulk,

·    Impacts of extending length of building,

·    Decreases amenity by increasing human traffic,

·    Decreases greenery and light,

·    Increase noise,

·    Increase feeling of bulk – oppressive to surrounding area.

 

Objections to amended proposal:

 

       Denis Ryan

       15 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Objects to rear extension causing overshadowing, invasion of privacy, non compliance with the zone objectives, floor space and open space requirements,

·    Existing building is too large and would not be approved under current controls,

·    Rear section of proposal excessive,

 

Michael & Susan Moddel

42 Dolphin Street

Randwick 2031

 

·    The proposed floor space significantly exceeds Council requirements,

·    Landscaped area further reduced,

·    Setbacks less than the recommended minimum at the rear,

 

Paul Pavlov

21 Chatham Street

Randwick 2031

 

·    Loss of privacy due to increased balconies,

·    Excessive size of balconies – fixed louvres do little to preserve privacy,

·    Northern extension results in increased floor area and applicant hasn’t addressed this,

·    Building is inconsistent with other buildings in Chatham Street in terms of bulk, scale and size,

·    Rear extension shall cause increase in overshadowing,

·    Increase balcony sizes and rear extension shall add to the bulkiest part of the building affecting the area visually and devaluing properties.

 

June Gsete

25 Chatham Street

Randwick 2031

 

·    Overshadowing,

·    Size of building out of character for the area,

 

Stephen Simmonds

23 Chatham Street

Randwick 2031

 

·    Larger balconies will have a greater intrusive and overlooking impact,

·    Roof terrace creates overlooking and noise,

·    Garages increase oppressive bulk,

·    Impacts of extending length of building,

·    Decreases amenity by increasing human traffic,

·    Decreases greenery and light,

·    Increase noise,

·    Increase feeling of bulk – oppressive to surrounding area.

 

Nils De Vries and Joanne Thirlwall,

Unit 5/40 Dolphin Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Encroachment of building to rear boundary fence will adversely affect privacy and will enable unrestricted views into units

 

5.2  Support

 

5 letters of support were submitted with the development application however two of these have been rescinded. The remaining letters of support are:

 

G Krisnen

11 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    Approves of the alterations and welcomes additional off street parking.

 

Mrs D Russell

No address provided.

 

·    Improved landscaping, façade and overall design will be a pleasing result.

 

Maria and Kathleen Finerson

17 Chatham Street,

Randwick 2031

 

·    General support for the upgrade.

 

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  Landscape Issues

 

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

 

6.2  Drainage Issues

 

The stormwater runoff that falls to the rear of the site (portion of the internal driveway) is to be drained to a 3 sqm infiltration pit located at the rear of the site.

 

6.3  Traffic/Parking Issues

 

The EPCD Dept is to determine whether there is sufficient hard surface turning area for northern most car space for the site. The EPCD Dept may seek additional information such as turning manoeuvre diagrams.

 

7.    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,

Building Code of Australia,

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,

Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing.

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

50%

32.7%

No

32 - FSR

0.65:1

1.13:1

No

33 - Building Height

7m wall height and 9.5m overall height

11

No

 

Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Under this clause, development must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area. The site currently provides 38.7% (194 sq.m) of the total site area as landscaped and the proposed development provides 32.7% (164 sq.m) of the total site area as landscaped.

 

A SEPP 1 objection was submitted pursuant to the non-compliance with the minimum landscaped area standard, for the following reasons:

 

The underlying objective of the development standard is as follows:

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of the development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas in open space for recreational purposes.”

 

The existing building has a total landscaped area of 207 sq.m or 41.2%. As it stands the existing development fails to achieve the minimum 50% requirement.

 

The existing landscaping is in poor condition and relatively ad-hoc in nature. The area is not visually attractive and does not encourage its use or patronage. The subject proposal seeks to formalise and improve the landscaped area on site to improve its useability, functionality and visual appeal.

 

It is proposed to provide 158.9 sqm of landscaped open space at the north, west and southern street frontage of the site as a Virginia creeper all along and up the new eastern boundary fence of the site. This area will accommodate deep soil planting and an open turfed area for communal recreation.

 

All of the 158.9 sq.m of landscaped space will be able to accommodate planting or soft landscaping and assist in stormwater management. A variety of species have been chosen to satisfy the objectives of the landscape provisions in the LEP. The landscaping will benefit occupiers by providing a pleasant landscaped environment, open space recreation areas, reduce urban runoff and soften the visual impact of the development.

 

A total of 104 sq.m of balcony space will be provided which is an increase above that existing.

 

The proposal provides more private open space and a higher quality common open space for use of residents and visitors.

 

The standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as:

 

·          the proposal provides landscaping on the site where currently very little exists;

·          the non-compliance with the standard will have no adverse impacts in relation to stormwater management;

·          the site will maintain a visual balance between the built form and areas of landscaping;

·          each of the units contained within the proposed development will have private open space areas, in the form of a balcony and/or terrace; and

·          usable communal open space is provided in the north of the site and will be accessible to all future occupants.

 

Having regard to the above, compliance with the development standard is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The proposed development results in an overall encroachment into existing landscaped area by 3m at the rear for a width of 6.9m resulting in a loss of 20.7sqm at the rear. This area is currently an unkempt piece of land that contains exposed dirt with patchy grass sited on a slope. The area currently provides no visual amenity, has no variety of landscaping and, due to the considerable slope, is unusable for recreation purposes. The trade off for the small loss in landscaping at the rear is in providing better amenity to the existing units, a greater amount of off street parking, a more appealing contemporary architectural design and new landscaping to the rear. The minor loss in landscaping is not considered significant given the improvements proposed and that the proposed space would be more usable than that existing. The proposed new landscaping at the rear includes tree ferns and Michaelia trees which will form an effective visual screen between the proposal and adjacent properties and will improve the aesthetics of the current poorly landscaped rear area.

 

Eight sq.m of landscaped area is also lost as part of the proposal at the front of the site between the building and the front property boundary. A small part of this area is proposed to contain a garbage area that is concealed behind a landscaped planter. Currently there is no garbage area and wheely bins are parked on the street and across the access driveway at the side causing visual clutter and odour problems. The front landscaped area currently contains a small broken front wall, an unkempt lawn and overgrown plants that spill upwards and partially block the front balconies on the first floor. The proposed improvements include a new landscaped planter around the entire front boundary, the introduction of a Chinese Willow Tree, spider lilies and a small garbage area that will be concealed from street view by the planter. These alterations provide a visual improvement to the streetscape, enable an appropriate garbage storage area and provide security. The landscaped area currently provides no visual interest or any usable function and as such the proposal represents a significant improvement in the amenity of the space.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and in this instance departure from the standard is reasonable resulting in a landscaped area which is more functional and aesthetic than the current situation.

 

Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio.

 

Under this clause, the FSR of a proposed development is not to exceed 0.65:1. The existing development has an FSR of 1.04:1 and the proposed FSR is 1.13:1 which exceeds the maximum of 0.65:1 by 0.48:1 or 241 sq.m. The proposal increases the floor area of the existing building by 45 sq.m.

 

A SEPP 1 objection to the FSR requirement has been submitted as follows:

 

The underlying objective of the development standard is to establish reasonable limits for development in residential,….through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The existing development with an FSR of 1.04:1 fails to achieve the maximum 0.65:1 FSR requirement. The additional 113.4 sq.m of floor space proposed will improve the amenity within all of the units. The additional floor space will allow larger bedrooms and living areas to all of the units, improving internal amenity through solar access, natural ventilation and a sense of space. The additional space will not result in unreasonable environmental impacts, particularly in terms of overshadowing or privacy.

 

The standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as the proposed work:

 

·          is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of height, bulk, scale, size, and the amount of private open space area afforded,

·          results in residential apartments which enjoy significantly improved levels of amenity due to larger bedroom and living area sizes,

·          provides larger areas available for private open space in the form of balconies and terraces,

·          contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality,

·          will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual impact,

·          will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development in the area,

·          provides high quality residential accommodation,

·          presents a contemporary built form which is appropriate in the context and will make a positive contribution to the Chatham Street streetscape.

 

The proposed increase in FSR represents a numerically large increase above the development standard however the site already significantly exceeds the control and the additional floor area will result in an improved building both visually and in terms of amenity to the proposed enlarged units. The existing building lacks architectural merit in terms of its design and its height and scale are out of context with adjacent development. Any increase in floor space needs to be designed sensitively to ensure that impacts to adjacent dwellings are negligible and the architectural presentation of the building to the streetscape is an improvement.

 

The slight increase in floor space at the front of the site (ie an extension of the front wall of the apartments by 1.23m over all three levels) creates an even façade and infills the existing balconies. The total increase in floor space attributed to this is 9.5 sq.m. The building is designed in a contemporary style which is considered an improvement on the existing façade which significantly detracts from the aesthetics of the existing streetscape. The decreased setback towards the street allows the development to marry the setback of the adjacent buildings to the east and west in Chatham Street. The increase in bulk at the front does not result in unreasonable impacts to dwellings fronting Chatham Street in terms of overlooking or overshadowing. Additional shadow is generally cast over the street during the winter solstice and the proposed windows do not create an additional privacy impact over and above the existing windows and balconies that front the street. The configuration of rooms within the units remains the same and bedrooms will continue to front Chatham Street, albeit in an enlarged form.

 

The main increase in FSR is at the rear of the site where it is proposed to increase the  length of the building an additional 2.2m to the rear over levels 1,2 and 3. This rear addition results in an increase in floor area of 17 sq.m. The proposed rear extension results in a new rear setback of 4m at ground level and 4.5m over the higher levels. The configuration of rooms remains the same and bedrooms will continue to face the rear of the site. The windows to the proposed enlarged bedrooms will not create an overlooking impact over and above the existing situation as the use and number of units does not change and the window sizes are similar although slightly shifted. It is proposed to landscape the rear boundary with Tree Ferns and trees to screen the proposed development from adjacent residents to the rear. The proposed extension of the building results in it being significantly further to the rear than either of the adjacent dwellings. Due to the sites almost perfect north/south orientation, the impact from this in terms of overshadowing is not excessive. It is considered that whilst the extension to the rear bulk is not consistent with the pattern of adjacent development in any way (as is the case for the existing development), its impact is not significant in terms of additional privacy loss and overshadowing. Overall the development is a vast improvement on the existing building and the proposed additional bulk has a minimal impact on adjacent dwellings.

 

The third area of additional bulk which absorbs the remainder of the increased FSR is located on the western side of the building in the form of a new entry foyer and stairwell totalling an addition 18.5 sq.m. The proposal is to shift the existing stairwell to the west and utilise the spare space within the existing units, therefore increasing their area. This results however, in an extension of the building to the western boundary of 1.4m resulting in a side setback of 1.6m instead of the existing 3m. This additional bulk is concealed from the street by its location at the centre of the site and causes minimal additional impact to the adjacent dwelling to the west. The benefit of the stairwell external to the building is in freeing up internal space to enable larger units with greater amenity.

 

Whilst the proposed development significantly increases the FSR at the site and the proposed FSR is well above the maximum stipulated under the LEP, the proposed envelope and bulk will have minimal impacts on adjacent dwellings, the streetscape and the area in general. The existing building is already out of context with adjacent development and the proposed expansion aims to improve the building visually and internally without adversely impacting upon neighbours. The contemporary design proposed will dramatically improve the streetscape while the additional FSR does not result in significant amenity impacts and will not be readily apparent when compared to the bulk of the existing building.

 

The exceedance of the standard FSR is considered reasonable in the circumstances and the SEPP1 should be supported.

 

Clause 33 – Building Height

 

A SEPP 1 objection to the FSR requirement has been submitted as follows:

 

·          involves only minor alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building,,

·          will reduce the overall height of the existing building by approximately 1m through the deletion of the existing pitched roof;

·          will generally maintain the existing built form on the site, commensurate with other development in the locality in terms of height, bulk, scale, size and the amount of private open space afforded,

·          contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality by repairing and refurbishing the exterior of the building to present a contemporary finish, with materials and finishes that will make a positive contribution to the streetscape and the general characteristics therein;

·          will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual impact;

·          will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area;

·          provides additional open space areas for private and communal recreation; and

·          significantly improves the quality of residential accommodation available on the site.

 

Under this clause, the maximum building height is 9.5m and the maximum external wall height is 7m. The existing building has a height of 12.74m and the proposed development has a height of 11.79m. The decrease in height is a result of removing the existing pitched roof for a flat roof. The decrease in height will improve view corridors for surrounding development and improve the appearance of the building from various vantage points within the Coogee area. Whilst the proposed development exceeds the height control, the proposed height is less than existing and is therefore not unreasonable and creates no greater impact than the existing building.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

a.         Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing (DCP)

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions)

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Front  boundary setbacks

P1 The front setback consistent  with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Ensure that:

·      solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·      Landscaping and private open space provided.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres from any side boundary.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length one section of wall 10 metres

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, average is approximately 2.5m to 3m – refer to section building setbacks below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Rear Boundary Setback

P3 Ensure that:

·      solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

·      Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

·      Building built across site.

 

 

S3 Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall  section 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

Rear setback 4 – 4.5m. Refer to building setbacks section below.

 

 

General

P4 Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on  adjoining properties.

 

 

S4  No device may encroach no more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

 

 

Complies

 

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Complies.

 

FENCES

 

P1

·      Front fences consistent  with  streetscape.

·      Entrances highlighted.

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

 

S1  Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

 

Complies

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

P2 Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided

communal open space.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

P4 In front of the building only  where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

Complies – all balconies are attached to living areas.

 

Not Applicable

 

 

Townhouses, row housing, villa housing etc

P5  Dwellings provided with useable private open space at ground or podium level.

 

 

 

S5  Minimum area of 25 m2 of private open space with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m.

 

 

 

Not Applicable.

 

 

Flats and apartments

 

P6 Dwellings have direct access to courtyard, balcony,  deck or roof garden.

 

 

 

S6    Minimum area of 8 m2 and a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

 

 

 

 

Minimum depth does not comply but area does. Refer section below.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

 

 

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation . Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

 

 

 

Balconies screened. Refer to privacy section below.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies.

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 
Acoustic Privacy

 

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise.

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

P1 Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

P1.2 Living areas of neighbours sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

P1.3 At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbours have sunlight less than 3 hours per day.

* If less than this is available the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

 

 

 

Complies – refer to solar access  section below.

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

S94 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5 star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

The Nat HERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

 

Note:

Central ducted heating/cooling system requires  a  minimum of 4.5 stars Nat HERS rating.

 

 

 

 

 

Not Applicable to existing units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

 

S5  Solar collector roof area  to face 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west of north, and slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal.

 

Not applicable for existing building.

 

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Standard condition to be imposed relating to walls and plumbing.

 

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

 

Area available at rear.

 

 

P8 No rainforest timbers or old growth forest timbers used. Materials have low  environmental impact. 

 

 

Complies.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

P1 Design allows surveillance. P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

 

Complies.

 

Complies.

 

Complies.

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

PARKING

 

 

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

P2 Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, however there is sufficient space within the proposed garages for bicycle parking.

 

 

Note:  The parking requirements are set in Randwick Parking DCP. The requirements are:

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling
                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Required:

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom (9 units), 11 spaces provided  complies..

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

Does not comply, 2 visitors spaces required, none provided.

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Complies

 

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

S2  Vehicles enter parking spaces with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

 

Complies

 

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

Complies

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Complies

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

 

Complies

 

STORAGE

 

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

 

S1  10m2  of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1 metres.

 

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area.

 

Storage facilities may be in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages .

 

 

Does not comply. Refer to section titled storage below.

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

P1 Design must provide  access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

 

S1 Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

 

Complies

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3  and so on.

 

The requirements of AS 1428.1 and AS 4299 are  to be considered.

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

 

 

Not applicable

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

 

S1  Storage cupboard in each kitchen sufficient which enables separation of recyclable material.

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Complies via condition of consent.

 

 

P2  Garbage and recycling containers in centralised garbage/ recycling room accessible to garbage compactors  where bins can be easily wheeled for collection. Facilities to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage /recycling collection service.

 

 

Complies – new garbage area at front of site.

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of the building and is not obtrusive.

 

S3  Waste facilities not to  be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

 

Non – compliance, garbage are located between building and front property boundary. Refer to waste section below.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Under the DCP, in a 2B zone the preferred minimum average setback from any side boundary is 4m and the average proposed varies between 2.5m and 3m. The proposed development has a side setback to the western boundary (for the most) of 3m. The new staircase in the centre of the building has a setback of 1.8m. A 3m setback is the prevailing existing setback and therefore compliance is not feasible. The setback of the new staircase results in an encroachment towards the side boundary of approximately 1.2m. The total distance from the staircase (which is enclosed) to the side of the adjacent building to the south is 2.5m. As the staircase is enclosed and lies adjacent to the side wall of the dwelling to the west, the impact in terms of noise, overlooking and overshadowing is negligible. It is considered that the non compliance with the preferred side setback will not result in a significant adverse impact to the adjacent dwelling to the west and therefore meets the performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The eastern wall of the existing building has a 4m side setback from the eastern boundary. Only the balconies on the eastern elevation are being extended to the east. The existing balconies have a depth of 1.2m and the proposed balconies have a depth of 1.6m. The proposed development therefore results in a decreased setback towards the eastern boundary of 0.4m. The proposed setback provides the subject balconies with a 6m separation from the side wall of the adjacent dwelling to the east. Whilst the balconies are marginally closer and are larger than the existing balconies, they are not of an open design as the existing balconies. The proposed balconies contain movable and fixed louvres to all sides which act as a visual and acoustic barrier between the buildings, provide an improved aesthetic face to the eastern wall, and will animate this elevation.

 

Whilst the proposed side setbacks do not comply with the DCP preferred solutions, the variations are not unreasonable and do not generate additional adverse amenity impacts.

 

The DCP preferred solutions for setbacks is 4.5m to the rear boundary. The existing setback is 6.7m and the proposed setback is 4.5m on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors and 4m at ground level. The variation therefore relates to the ground level which is a result of the proposal to create an enclosed parking space. The separation distance between the rear setback and the setback of the adjacent town houses and dwellings to the rear is between 8 and 10m. Between these buildings a significant stand of vegetation is proposed that acts as a visual and acoustic buffer. To reduce the ground floor setback by 0.5m resulting in compliance with the preferred solution of the DCP would require the loss of an enclosed carparking space at no benefit to the adjacent residents or the development itself. The minor non compliance at ground level is therefore not considered significant and will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent dwellings.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

As mentioned in section 7, the proposed development does not comply with the landscaping requirements of the LEP under both the existing conditions and for the proposed development, however the proposed landscaped area at ground level is considered reasonable given the existing site constraints.

 

The DCP preferred solution is that private open space is provided to each apartment with a minimum area of 8 sq.m and a minimum dimension of 2 metres. The proposed development significantly expands the area of the existing balconies by double their existing size. The proposed balconies have dimensions of 1.6m x 7.17m totalling 11.472sq.m each. The proposed expanded balconies result in a significantly expanded open area which will greatly improve usability and amenity. Notwithstanding this, the balconies do not comply with the required 2m depth. Whilst this is the case, the balconies are proposed to be increased in depth from 1.2m to 1.6m. It is considered that such an increase is a reasonable compromise that facilitates greater balcony sizes without detrimentally impinging upon the adjacent neighbours.

 

Privacy

 

Under the DCP preferred solutions, new development is to be designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy and so that the existing level of privacy to adjoining and nearby properties is respected. Where the horizontal separation is less than 10m between windows, they should be offset, angled or screened to reduce potential privacy impacts.

 

The proposed development increases the size of windows on the side boundary and enlarges the balconies – as mentioned previously – quite substantially. The proposed expanded balconies are sited in front of the proposed enlarged windows and are proposed to contain fixed and movable louvres. The northern most balconies over all levels contain fixed full height louvres on both the southern and northern sides and a fixed full height louvre on the northern end of the east side as well as a movable full height louvre on the eastern side. The southern and centred balconies over all levels each contain a fixed full height louvre on the southern side and movable full height louvres on the eastern side. The central and southern balconies face the side wall of the adjacent dwelling to the east which is punctured with only a few small window openings, none of which perform the primary light and ventilation source for significant living spaces. The rear or northern balconies are however sited in a position which enables (without privacy screening) a new and extensive overlooking opportunity to the rear yard of the dwellings to the east and north. With this in mind, the applicant has placed full height privacy louvres as mentioned previously to effectively reduce overlooking and for acoustic privacy. It is considered that the proposed louvres achieve the desired effect of preventing adverse amenity impacts to neighbours in terms of overlooking and noise whilst they add a contemporary design element to the building which improves its appearance. Whilst the proposed development increases bulk at the rear and includes expanded balconies, it is considered that the design greatly improves amenity and open space to the existing units whilst minimising the current intrusive impacts of the existing open balconies.

 

Solar Access

 

Preferred solutions in the DCP with respect to solar access include that solar access to solar collectors on adjacent properties is to be maintained, living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have sunlight reduced to less than three hours per day throughout the year and at least 50% of the principle landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that the western elevation of No 21 Chatham Street receives slight additional overshadowing at certain times throughout the day and throughout the year as a result of the proposal. The subject overshadowing, however, falls predominantly over blank walls and only occasionally affects part of some side windows. The additional overshadowing is very minimal and is not considered significant so as to result in the loss of amenity.

 

The diagrams indicate that the eastern elevation of No 17 Chatham Street will be affected in a similar if not lesser extent than for 21 Chatham Street. This can be measured through a minor increased impact to one side window at 11am only on March 22, and a minor increased impact to a small window at 10am on June 22. Such impact is not significant and will not detrimentally affect the amenity of the adjacent neighbour to any great degree.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted show that additional overshadowing to the rear yards of the adjacent properties to the east and west will increase to a very minor extent during the equinox and the winter solstice. The additional shadowing however is extremely minor and the adjacent yards will still maintain near full sunlight through out the day and through out the year due to their orientation.

 

The additional overshadowing is therefore minor, does not result in a non-compliance with Council requirements and ensures that good levels of solar access are maintained to the adjacent properties.

 

Storage

 

The preferred solution with respect to storage under the DCP is that adequate provision be made in new development for storage space. 10 sq.m of storage space is provided for each dwelling with a minimum clearance height of 2.1m. The existing building contains no storage area and no additional storage area is proposed. Areas are marked in the new garages however as possible storage areas. The proposed development involves the enclosure of car parking spaces creating a secure parking area to each unit. Within these spaces there is sufficient area to store goods as well as park a car. Requiring an additional 10 sq.m within each apartment for storage is not feasible without expanding the floor area of the building by 90 sq.m. It is considered that reasonable space is available in the garages and that expanding the building any further for storage space may result in greater amenity impacts to neighbours by way of additional bulk and overshadowing. The proposal with respect to storage is considered reasonable.

 

Waste Minimisation and Management

 

The DCP preferred solutions require that waste storage facilities for garbage and recycling containers are provided either as centralised garbage/recycling rooms accessible to garbage compactors or in a facility where bins can be easily wheeled to the street for collection. The facilities are of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the dwellings and the garbage/recycling collection service. The location and design of waste collection facilities complements the design of the development and is not visually obtrusive in the streetscape or from any public places. Waste facilities should not be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

 

The existing development contains no waste storage area and wheelies bins are parked along the side driveway and are visually exposed to the street and residents. Under the proposed development, a small enclosed waste area for wheelie bins is proposed that is capable of containing 8 bins. The area is to be surrounded by a painted and rendered wall that is landscaped and is covered by a timber pergola. The bins will not be visible from the street but are located within a few meters of the footpath to allow easy access during collection times. Whilst the proposed development does not strictly comply with Council’s requirement, the storage area will not adversely impact upon the streetscape and results in an improved management of the waste. Due to the constraints of the existing envelope, it would be difficult to locate the bins elsewhere without removing a car space or increasing the building envelope at the expense of the already limited landscaped area. The proposed waste management facility is therefore considered reasonable and will not adversely impact upon adjacent dwellings in terms of amenity or the streetscape.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1     Local Environmental Planning Instrument's and State of Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

SEPP 65 contains 10 design principles that must be considered as part of any assessment. These principles are 1. Context, 2. Scale, 3. Built Form, 4. Density, 5. Resource, Water and Energy Efficiency, 6. Landscape, 7. Amenity, 8. Safety and Security, 9. Social Dimensions, 10. Aesthetics.

 

With respect to the above principles, the applicant has submitted the following:

 

Principle 1 – Context.

 

The site is currently occupied by an existing three (3) storey residential flat building containing nine (9) units. The proposed remodelling of the exterior of the building respects the character and context of the streetscape. The proposal will improve the quality and finish of the built form and the appearance of the site generally, and is therefore consistent with Principle 1.

 

Comment:. The existing building is already out of context with the area in terms of its design, bulk and scale. The proposed development results in a drastic improvement in the design appearance of the building in the streetscape and within the units themselves in terms of function, usability and amenity. The additional floor space is compatible with the existing building envelope and will not result in significant adverse amenity impacts to neighbours.

 

Principle 2 – Scale

 

The proposal includes alterations and an extension to the existing building. The proposed extension to the front and rear of the building and enlargement of the balconies on the western elevation are appropriate in terms of bulk and massing. The existing pitched roof will be replaced by a roof terrace which will reduce the building’s overall height by approximately 1m.

 

The proposed alteration to the existing residential building will make a positive contribution to the streetscape and establish a high quality benchmark upon which future development in the street can be based. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with Principle 2.

 

Comment: The proposed scale is reasonable as is addressed in section 7 previously.

 

Principle 3 – Built Form

 

The proposal is for alterations to an existing building. The built form of the existing building will be articulated through remodelling of the exterior in terms of window openings, detailing and materials. The proposed alterations are of a high quality and contemporary design. Having regard to the above, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with Principle 3.

 

Comment: The built form changes at all elevations as is mentioned and assessed in section 7. The proposed built form is a significant improvement on the existing building.

 

Principle 4 – Density

 

The existing building has a GFA of 522 sq.m and an FSR of 1.04:1, which does not comply with the FSR control contained in LEP 1998. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 635 sq.m and an FSR of 1.26:1, which is also non-compliant with the FSR control stated in LEP 1998. Notwithstanding this, and as explained in the SEPP 1 objection, the proposed development will result in an improvement to the design of the building, both visually and in terms of the amenity for future occupants.

 

The proposed development will be lower as the existing pitched roof will be replaced with a flat roof terrace. The proposal will perform satisfactorily, particularly with regard to overshadowing, view loss, privacy intrusion and general overbearing characteristics.

 

The existing density of the development on the site will be maintained and the proposed improvements will result in a built form which fits comfortably within the streetscape. The proposed development provides nine (9) refurbished apartments in close proximity to public transport services, Coogee Beach and the Coogee Commercial Centre. The proposal is considered to be consistent with Principle 4.

 

Comment: This matter is addressed previously in section 7. The proposed density is reasonable and satisfies the stated and underlying objection of clause 32 of the LEP.

 

Principle 5 – Resource, Water and Energy Efficiency

 

The proposed alterations and additions take advantage of the site’s orientation in order to maximise solar access and natural ventilation. In addition, the following design elements have been incorporated into the building:

 

·          sliding louvre screen on the eastern façade will be used to moderate solar penetration into the units. The screens have adjustable louvres that can also be used to control airflow into the apartments;

 

·          retractable external mounted cedar blinds will be installed on the windows in the northern façade to control solar access. Aluminium louvres will be installed over the north facing windows to manage solar access to this area;

 

·          no new windows are proposed in the western façade to keep the impacts of the harsh western sun to minimum; and

 

·          the roof slab and external masonry walls provide thermal mass which assist in regulating the temperature within the building.

 

Partial demolition of the existing building will be undertaken having regard to the need to recycle materials and minimise the generation of waste. Wherever possible, materials resulting from demolition will be sorted, recycled and taken to a suitable waste management centre for re-use or disposal.

 

The existing stormwater disposal system will adequately serve the proposed development.

 

There is no requirement to undertake a NatHERS Assessment for refurbishment works.

 

Comment: The proposed changes result in significant improvement in internal amenity in terms of larger units and larger openings and balconies which therefore improve solar access and ventilation.

 

Principle 6 – Landscape

 

Comment: Landscape is discussed in detail previously.

 

Principle 7 – Amenity

 

The design of the building provides high levels of amenity for both residents and neighbours. As discussed throughout this report, the proposed development provides:

 

·    a range of dwelling sizes (one and two bedroom units) to suit varying community requirements,

·    good access to sunlight and ventilation, by taking advantage of the site’s orientation;

·    privacy by locating windows and balconies of main living areas to avoid overlooking;

·    incorporating louvre screens, planter boxes and screen planting to minimise adverse privacy impacts;

·    separation distances to minimise potential overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties from the proposed development;

·    service and garbage storage areas in close proximity to the street for ease of access;

·    increasing the size of units to provide greater internal amenity;

·    reconfiguring the interior units to provide larger living areas and improved access to enlarge private open space by way of balconies; and

·    individual undercover car parking spaces for all residents.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development provides a high level of amenity and is therefore consistent with Principle 7.

 

Comment: The proposed development results in improved amenity to the units within the development and does not result in significant adverse amenity impacts to adjacent dwellings. These matters are discussed previously in section 7.

 

Principle 8 – Safety and Security

 

A high level of safety and security is provided within and around the proposed development. The grade level car park will be enclosed to ensure security. Casual surveillance, lighting, location of pedestrian accessways and landscaping have all been carefully sited to ensure security is maintained. The proposed pedestrian access gate (where currently none exists) and video intercom system to all units will also provide superior security and safety within the site. In this regard, the proposed development is consistent with Principle 8.

 

Comment: The proposed development contains windows from habitable rooms which overlook the street and improve surveillance. The security system ensures that uninvited entry to the site is no longer possible. The front access to the units is clearly visible from the street and does not invite the opportunity for concealment by assailants. Overall the changes result in an improvement to the safety and security residents within the proposal and in the surrounding area.

 

Principle 9 – Social Dimensions

 

The proposed development provides a mix of unit sizes, ranging in size (internal area) between 50.53 sq.m to 77.53 sq.m to cater for the varying requirements of the community. The site is located in close proximity to a range of services and facilities including the Coogee Commercial Centre and Coogee Beach. In this regard, the proposed development responds to characteristics of the local community by providing a range of unit types in close proximity to several social facilities, demonstrating consistency with Principle 9.

 

Comment: No concerns are raised with respect to the social dimensions of the proposal.

 

Principle 10 – Aesthetics

 

The external alteration have been designed with regard to the characteristics of the site and the streetscape. The intent of the design has been to create a high quality contemporary built form that responds to the existing building and its surrounds in terms of detailing and external appearance. The proposal will not create any unreasonable or privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Materials such as rendered walls and aluminium and timber louvred screens reinforce this design approach. The design makes a positive contribution to the streetscape. It is considered that the building has a high degree of architectural merit, and is therefore consistent with Principle 10.

 

Comment: The proposed development results in a significant streetscape improvement both from the front elevation and the side elevations which are highly visible from the street. The building as a whole is improved aesthetically by rendering the building, changing window shapes, introducing interesting colour and by mixing up materials such as timber and aluminium louvres to the balconies. Overall the proposal will result in a vast improvement to the appearance of the building.

 

In conclusion the proposed development has been designed in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP and is considered worthy of approval.

 

SEPP 10 – Retention of Low Cost Accommodation

 

A previous application (DA 02/00902) to strata subdivide the existing units was approved by Council subject to conditions relating to retaining low cost accommodation in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Infrastructure and Sustainable Planning.  A section 96 has been submitted to alter the boundaries of this subdivision in accordance with the new proposal. The SEPP 10 conditions will be retained on the DA as part of the section 96 modification should this application be approved by the Council.

 

Traffic & Carparking

 

         Parking provisions

 

              The proposed development provides 3 additional carparking spaces and proposes to enclose all 11 new spaces. Under the Parking DCP,  the proposed development is required to provide 10.2 spaces for the units and 2 visitors spaces. The proposed development results in an increase in parking above that existing however results in a non-compliance with Council requirements by 1 space. Additional spaces can not be provided without generating a significant impact on the landscaped area which is unacceptable. It is considered that the level of parking therefore is not unreasonable however at least one space needs to be re-allocated  for visitors.

             

The manoeuvring area is sufficient to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

Urban Design

 

The existing building has a façade to Chatham Street that appears as a typical 1960’s medium density residential apartment building in that it is built of brick, has small front balconies with glass ballustrading and an untidy front yard which has overgrown plants and a broken front fence. The building contains no significant or aesthetic design elements which make it compatible with other building in the street, and it does relate to the scale of the street or contribute to the streetscape. The proposed dramatically improves this situation by removing the front balconies, creating new window openings with varied shapes, rendering the brickwork and painting the render with bright colours, putting in new timber garage doors, landscaping the front gardens areas and providing a new secure landscaped wall. The east side of the building is also highly visible from Chatham Street and the changes to that face include new window openings and a series of enlarged balconies with fixed and sliding louvres of aluminium and timber with a steel frame holding the balconies together. All of these elements create a façade with a contemporary style which greatly improves the appearance of the building to the streetscape. Such changes are supported and will make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development results in a minor increase to the building envelope at the front and rear, an increase in balcony sizes on the eastern side and a new stair well on the western side. These changes result in a significant improvement to the internal amenity of the existing units including an increase in the size of bedrooms and balconies. The exterior design of the building is improved by significant design changes in terms of materials, colours, shapes and contemporary architectural resolution. These alterations will result in a vast improvement in the appearance of the building within the streetscape, and increase the parking on the site. In terms of impact to neighbours, the impact of the proposal is minimal and light, ventilation and privacy to adjacent dwellings is maintained to a high degree. The proposal generally complies with the relevant policies and legislation and is considered worthy of approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources to vary the provisions of Clause 31(2) Landscaping, Clause 32(1) Floor space ratios, 33(2) Building heights of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit housing building under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 03/00228 for Alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit housing building at 19 Chatham Street, Randwick,

 

AND

 

B.         THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 03/00228 for Alterations and additions to an existing multi-unit housing building at 19 Chatham Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A:001 B, A:003 C, A:004 B, A:005 C, A:200 C, A:201 C, A:202 C, A300 B, dated 21.01.03 and received by Council on 22 July 2003, and A:002 B and the Landscape Plan and received by Council 21 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:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

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

 

a)             a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

3.         The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

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

 

5.         Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

7.         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.

 

8.         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.

 

9.         At least one of the proposed car parking spaces within the proposed development is to be made available for use as visitor parking.

 

10.       Public access to the visitor’s carparking space is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       All new external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls to the 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.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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.

 

20.       The existing levels of fire safety within the premises are to be upgraded to achieve an adequate level of fire safety in accordance with the provisions of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and a report prepared by a suitably qualified person or accredited certifier is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The fire safety report must detail the measures considered appropriate to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia, to protect persons using the building, and to facilitate their egress from the building in the event of fire and to restrict the spread of fire.

 

The fire safety upgrading works are to be included in the construction certificate and be implemented prior to occupation of the new building or part.

 

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

 

21.       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 and detailing 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, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications 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.

 

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

 

a)       all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

23.       A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and 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:

 

a)       proposed building works

 

24.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to 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:

 

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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

·    Sediment control measures.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

b)         On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks.

 

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

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

45.       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.

 

46.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

51.       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 following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

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

 

·    Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

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

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

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

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

 

A7       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

            In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a)      Part D3            -              Access for people with disabilities

            b)      Part E1             -              Fire fighting equipment

            c)      Part E4             -              Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

            d)      Part F1             -              Damp and weatherproofing

 

            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.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

*          Reconstruct the concrete footpath along the full site frontage.

*          Reconstruct the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

54.       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.

 

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

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

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

 

59.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

Drainage Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

60.       The site stormwater runoff from the internal driveway, which drains to the rear, shall be piped to a 3-metre square base infiltration area.

 

Notes:

 

      The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

     

i.          have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.          be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.         be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed.

            Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.         have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

 

The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

      All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER


 

Director Community Development's Report 74/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

266 - 270 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

 

DATE:

2 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/287/2002

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting of 11 March 2003 deferred consideration of a Section 96 Application seeking to modify condition 2 of the  development consent, relating to the carrying out of auctions on the subject premises to allow the applicant’s traffic consultant, Mr Chris Hallam, to undertake a further survey and present this information back to Council officers in order that traffic and parking conditions in the area may be adequately addressed. Condition 2 reads as follows:

 

‘2.        The hours of operation for business are from 8.30am –6pm Monday to Friday and 8.30am –1pm Saturday and no auctions are to be carried out within the premises during or after operation hours, to minimise the likely residential amenity impact in terms of noise, traffic and on street parking congestion.’

 

On 5 June 2003 a submission was received from Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners, which included an updated parking survey from Traffic and Transport Pty Ltd.  Although the Health Building and Planning Committee has requested that the additional parking survey is to be supplied by Mr Chris Hallam, the applicant has stated that Chris Hallam and Associates could not conduct the parking survey as Mr Hallam was on leave for four weeks at the time of Councils resolution and Traffic and Transport Services Pty Ltd were employed to minimise the delay in providing comments. 

 

The parking survey by Traffic and Transport Services was conducted in streets up to 300metres away from the subject site between 6:00pm and 8:30 pm on the Wednesday evenings of the 19, and 26 March and 2 April 2003.  The survey found that a total of 704 spaces are located in the survey area, 690 of these spaces having unrestricted parking.  The survey found that the lowest number of vacant car spaces available was 288 at 8:30 pm on Wednesday the 2 April 2003.

 

On 19 August 2003 the applicant was requested to clarify information supplied by providing:

 

1.         A statement from the applicant confirming that the auctions are to be held on Wednesday nights.

2.         The amount of car parking spaces available within 100m of the site and the number of vacant spaces available within 100m of the site during the auction times. 

2.         The maximum number of patrons who will attend the site at any one time during  auction nights.

 

A response to this request was received on 22 August 2003 in which the applicant has stated that auctions are only to be held on Wednesday evenings, approximately once every three weeks with a maximum of 17 auctions being held per year. The applicant has also supplied details of the amount of spaces from Traffic and Transport Services parking survey within approximately 100m of the site, in the following streets:

 

·    Dans Avenue – from Clovelly Road to Arden Street

·    Arden Street – from Division Street to Clovelly Road.

·    Clovelly Road – from Fewings Street to Beach Street.

·    Fewings Street – from Clovelly Road to the Lane

 

The survey found that there were 132 parking spaces, including 118 unrestricted spaces and 14 half hour parking spaces with the lowest number of vacant parking spaces in this area being 23 at 7:30pm on Wednesday 2 April 2003.

 

The applicant has stated that a maximum of 8 items will be auctioned on auction nights with an average of 12 people attending each auction, and 96 people attending in total over the whole auction night.  The applicant has stated that based on their experience, people would not attend the site for more than 30 minutes.  On average this would lead to 36 people attending over that 30 minute period. This would require on the basis of 2 people per car attending each auction, 18 vacant car spaces.

 

Five additional submissions have been received during the time between the application being presented before the Council and the writing of this report from residents raising objections to the proposal.  A summary of the issues raised include:

 

·    Disappointed with the Councils decision to defer consideration of the application.

·    Concern that there is a lack of on street parking in the area.

·    Concern that the proposal will cause an increase in traffic in the area.

·    Concern that the proposal will lead to people parking illegally.

·    Concern that the parking survey was not conducted during the summer months during the backpackers season.

·    Concern that the parking survey area is too large.

·    There are no other real estate agencies in the area holding auctions on site.

 

Traffic Engineers Comments:

 

The Traffic and Transport Services parking survey was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer for assessment.  In response Councils Traffic Engineer has provided the following comments:

 

‘As discussed, further to Resolution of Council, dated 11th March 2003, the applicant was asked to provide additional information concerning parking in the vicinity of the site.

 

The applicant has now furnished information confirming that:-

 

1.   The proposed auctions will be held only once every three weeks, on Wednesdays evenings;

 

2.   Within 100 metres of the site, currently there are 132 on-street parking spaces available at any one time after 6:00pm on Wednesdays;

 

3.   At any one time during the auctions, a maximum of 36 people would be in attendance at the premises creating a demand for 18 car parking spaces.

 

On the above basis, no objection would be raised on traffic grounds for the approval of the proposed use should it be supported by Council.

 

However, it is considered that any approval for the proposed use should be limited to a trial period of 6 to 12 months. If during this trial period no adverse impact of the use is reported to Council, the continued use could be permitted’

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the additional parking survey from Traffic and Transport Services Pty Ltd and the traffic engineers comments, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the number of vacant spaces surrounding the subject site would be sufficient to accommodate the additional parking demands for the conducting of auctions.

 

It is therefore recommended that auctions be permitted for a 12-month trial period at the end of which, a review of the impact if any, that the use may have on neighbouring properties can be undertaken.  The applicant will be required to lodge a Section 96 Modification to continue use of the site for auctions at the end of the twelve month period.  Assessment of the trial period will be based on, but not limited to, the performance of the operator in relation to compliance with the development consent conditions, and any complaints and the reasons given, that are received in respect to traffic and parking.

 

It is also recommended that in light of the information supplied by the applicant, the hours of operation relating to auctions are to be conditioned so that auctions are limited to one Wednesday evening, once every 3 weeks, between the hours of 6:00pm and 8:30pm, with a maximum of 8 auctions to be held each auction evening, and a maximum of 17 auction evenings per year.

 

Concern was raised in the assessment report of 25 February 2003 regarding the proposed under awning sign. It is recommended that two additional conditions be added to the consent requiring the proposed under awning sign to be located no lower than 2.6 metres above the footpath, and that light overspill from advertising and signage shall not cause a nuisance to adjoining properties.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to vary condition 2 of Development Consent No. D/287/2002 in relation to hours of operation, the use of the premises for auctions and new signage and alterations to the internal layout at 266-270 Clovelly Road, Clovelly as follows:

 

Condition 1 and 2 are modified to read as follows:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 3-2077-T1, dated 7/11/00 and received by Council on 4th April 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered EN-1 dated, 26 June 2002 and received by Council on 12 December 2002, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The hours of operation for business excluding auctions are from 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am – 1pm Saturday. 

 

            Auctions are to be limited to one Wednesday evenings, once every 3 weeks, between the hours of 6:00pm and 8:30pm, with a maximum of 8 auctions to be held each auction evening and a maximum of 17 auction evenings per year.

 

Consent for auctions shall be subject to a twelve-month trial period.  The Acting Director of Planning & Community Development is to be notified in writing of the date of commencement of the operation for auctions. A further Section 96 application to modify condition No.2 to allow permanent operation of the auctions on site is to be submitted before the end of the trial period for Council’s consideration. Such consideration will be based on, but not limited to, the performance of the operator in relation to compliance with the development consent conditions, and any complaints received and the reasons given, in respect to traffic and parking.

 

 

Add the following conditions:

 

15.       The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Clovelly Road to the underside of the proposed under-awning advertising sign, (i.e. the sign to be installed above the footpath in Clovelly Road), shall be 2.6 metres.

 

16.       Light overspill from advertising and signage shall not cause a nuisance to adjoining properties.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.      The applicant shall be advised that Council may, in the future, be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

A2.      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.

 

A3.      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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report Dated 25 February 2003

2. Parking Study by Christopher Hallam and Associates Pty Ltd

3.Parking Study by Traffic and Transport Surveys Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 February, 2003

FILE NO:

D/287/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to alter Condition 2 in relation to hours of operation.  Proposed hours 8:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 1pm Saturday.  Auctions limited to once every 3 weeks

PROPERTY:

 266-270 Clovelly Road, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 M Edwards

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Judy Greenwood, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey..

 

The applicant proposes to alter Condition 2 of the Development Consent 287/2002 to allow for auctions, and alter the existing signage and internal layout of the building.

 

Auctions have been proposed for once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8pm.  During each auction evening, 1 to 8 properties will be auctioned attracting 30 to 100 people.

 

The application was notified to adjoining property owners and in reply 10 objection letters from 9 properties in Dans Avenue and Clovelly Road have been received.  A letter of support from Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners on behalf of the applicant has also been received.  

 

The parking study submitted with the application has not adequately assessed the impact of the proposal on the parking capacity of the area, and demonstrated the parking available on site is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand of the proposed auctions.  The inadequacy of the onsite parking provided will result in the intrusion of car parking within the surrounding residential area with a resultant adverse impact on the amenity of local residents.

 

The application is therefore recommended is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposes to alter Condition 2 of the Development Consent 287/2002 to allow for auctions, and alter the existing signage and internal layout.

 

The applicant has stated in their Statement of Environmental Effects that auctions will be held once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8pm.  During each auction session 1 to 8 properties will be auctioned attracting 30 to 100 people

 

The applicant has suggested altering Condition 2 of the Development Consent, which states:

 

‘2.       The hours of operation for business are from 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am – 1pm Saturday and no auctions are to be carried out within the premises during or after operation hours, to minimise the likely residential amenity impact in terms of noise, traffic and on street parking congestion.’

 

and replacing it with the following Condition:

 

‘2.       The hours of operation for business are from 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am – 1pm Saturday. Auctions are to be limited to week days, on average once every three weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm.’

 

The applicant has stated that the hours suggested in the condition vary from the actual auction hours to allow for people arriving before 6:30pm and remaining after 8:00pm.

 

In addition to allowing for auctions, the applicant proposes to change the internal layout of the building by installing partition walls and creating an auction room with seating for up to 60 patrons.  The applicant also proposes to install a 1 metre wide by 1 metre deep by 400mm high under awning sign to the street frontage of Clovelly Road.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road between Dans Avenue and Arden Street in Coogee. The site is a regular shaped allotment with street frontages to Clovelly Road and Dans Avenue, and contains a single storey commercial building with parking under accessed from Dans Avenue.  

 

The site is located at the end of a small shopping strip and is surrounded by predominantly residential premises with the exception of the properties to the east along Clovelly Road. Immediately to the east of the site is the Castle Backpackers Hostel.  The property to the west contains a semi-detached dwelling house.  Across from the site is a 3 storey residential flat building with parking under.  Next to the residential flat building to the east is the start of the shopping strip.   Further to the west on the Corner of Clovelly Road and Knox Street is the Clovelly RSL/ Air force Club.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council received a development application to change the use to a real-estate agency and new signage at 266-270 Clovelly Road Coogee on 4 April 2002.  The application was notified to the adjoining and neighbouring residents on 12 April 2002.  Two objection letters were received from Ms Penny Robbins and Mr Kim Dalton of 41 Dans Avenue and Mr Tim and Mrs Linda Street of 37 Dans Avenue.  Both residents were concerned about the lack of parking in the area and problems with previous tenants of the building.  Concerns were also raised regarding auctions being held on the property.

 

The applicant subsequently advised the Council that they were considering holding auctions fortnightly on a Wednesday or Thursday nights finishing no later than 9pm.  As no details of auctions and the potential traffic generated accompanied the application, a condition prohibiting auctions being held on the site was included with the consent.  The application was approved on the 14 May 2002 subject to conditions restricting the hours of operation, prohibiting auctions being held on site and deleting some signage.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The following development applications have been lodged for the site:

 

70/00011/DZ -   To use premises for sale used and new car      Rejected 07/07/70

 

70/00100/GF-    Use existing premises as panel beaters

                          and used car sales                                           Rejected 04/08/70

 

71/01581/DZ -   Use premises as a self service

                          grocery shop                                                  Approved 03/08/71

 

71/00140/GF -   Erect a retail self service grocery shop             Approved 03/08/71

 

99/00813/GN -  Carry out internal alterations and

                          change use of the premises from

                          supermarket to office                                      Approved 02/09/99

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Glenda Donazzan, 7 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     Lack of street parking in the vicinity.

-     Allowing auctions will put an extra strain on the street parking caused by commercial and residential uses already existing in the area particularly the Air Force Club, Catholic Church and backpackers.

-     Fears that people will park illegally across bus stops and driveways.

-     Fears that residents will have to walk large distances from their homes to find street parking causing an increase in car break-ins and being detrimental to residents personal safety.

 

Tim and Linda Street, 37 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     Lack of street parking in the area.

-     The auctions will add extra strain on the existing street parking caused by the existing commercial uses on Clovelly Road, the RSL and Backpackers Hostel.

-     Fears that the people coming to auctions will become too emotional and will have disregard for parking laws, parking illegally on nature strips and across driveways.

-     Problems in the past with the previous tenants of 266 – 270 Clovelly Road not providing enough parking for employees and people parking illegally on the street.

-     Has recently experienced street auctions in Dans Avenue where large amounts of people have attended.

-     Problems in the past with abandoned cars being left on the street by former guests of the backpackers.

-     Suggests that the applicant use the Clovelly Surf Club for auctions as it has a large car park.

-     Considers the proposal ambiguous with specific reference to the frequency of auctions, the days to which they are to be held and the proposed hours of operation.

-     Has concerns with the applicant’s parking study particularly that the data was sampled over one Wednesday night.

-     Concerned that not all properties in the parking study area were notified of the proposal.

-     Unaware of why the applicant now wishes to provide auctions on site when the development application prohibited them.

-     Does not believe that holding auctions on site is in the best interest of the residents and ratepayers of the area.

 

Lynn and Peter Race, 9 Dans Avenue Randwick.

 

-     Believes holding auctions will increase the parking congestion in the area caused by lack of on site parking for existing commercial and residential uses including existing houses, unit blocks, the RSL and Backpackers Hostel.

-     Fears the proposal will cause an increase in illegal parking causing safety issues for traffic.

-     Fears that residents will have to walk further away from their homes to find street parking and will be detrimental to residents’ personal safety.

 

D A Craner 27 Dans Avenue Clovelly.

 

-     The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing street parking of Dans Avenue.

-     Has problems walking along the footpath due to illegally parked cars near the backpackers hostel.

 

Ross and Roslyn Miles, 39 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-     The proposal will cause undue strain on the existing off street parking facilities of the street.

-     Fears that holding auctions once every three weeks is the ‘thin edge of the wedge’

-     Fears that people will park illegally and that Council will have trouble policing this potential problem.

-     Fears that people will not leave immediately after auctions have finished and that the finishing time may be closer to 10pm.

-     Fears that people staying after auctions have finished may cause a noise nuisance.

Kim Dalton and Penny Robins 41 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-       Upset that not enough properties were notified of the proposed amendment.

-       Fears that auctions being held on site will increase the demand for on street parking in the area.

-       Dans Avenue has problems with vehicles being parked in the street by guests of the Castle Backpackers. 

-       Problems in the past with the previous tenants of 266 – 270 Clovelly Road not providing enough parking for employees and people parking illegally on the street.

-       Believes that the surrounding area will not be able to accommodate the amount of people that the applicant has stated may attend auctions and that residents will have to park several blocks away when arriving home on nights that auctions will be held.

-       Believes that it is unreasonable for the applicant to hold auctions on the site when the development application prohibited them.

-       Believes that the hours of operation and the frequency of the proposed auctions as specified in the application are too flexible.

-       Believes that the parking study is inadequate and does not take into account the summer backpacker’s season. 

 

Sue O’Connor, 33 Dans Avenue Coogee.

 

-       Does not understand why the Council is considering the applicant to hold auctions on the site when the development application prohibited them.

-       Has stated that their understanding for the reason that no auctions are to be held on site are that there is a lack off street parking to accommodate people attending auctions.

-       Concerned that insufficient residents were notified of the application and that the date the letter was sent out was inappropriate. The objector believes that this is a cynical ploy to allow the application to be approved.

-       Believes that there is not enough parking available in the area due to the bus zones on Clovelly Road, Australia Post Boxes, traffic calming devices, the local church, residential flat buildings in the area and cars parked by guests of the backpackers hostel.

-       Suggests that the applicant use the Clovelly Surf Club for auctions as it has a large car park.

 

Anthony Brooks, 295 Clovelly Road Clovelly.

 

-       Clovelly Road has existing parking problems and believes that the parking study is inaccurate.

-       Believes an extra 100 persons attending auctions will only increase this problem and cause major disruption and inconvenience to residents.

-       The area already has inadequate parking for the Backpackers and RSL.

-       Elders staff never use the existing under cover parking.

-       Believes the proposal will cause traffic congestion, decrease pedestrian safety and has the potential to cause additional accidents.

-       Noise pollution caused by large amounts of people entering an leaving the site.

-       Does not understand why the modification has been lodged when the development application prohibits auctions.

-       Questions whether the proposed modification is substantially the same development.

-       The proposal does not relate to the objectives of the 2A Residential Zoning.

-       Does not believe that the applicants proposed hours of operation are accurate.

-       The proposed signage is inappropriate and will cause a nuisance to surrounding property owners.

 

5.2  Support

 

Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners.  Level 4, 75 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction.  (Acting on behalf of Applicant.)

 

The following is a summary of a letter of support received in response to the objection letters submitted to the Council.

 

-       The traffic report indicates 136 car spaces within 250 metres of the subject site.  13 to 33 of those spaces were available between 6pm and 9pm on the evening surveyed.  The applicant recognises that the number of parking spaces may change on a daily basis but has stated that the parking study is an indication of the typical parking situation on a Wednesday night.  The applicant has also stated that the study does not address the availability of spaces beyond the survey area as it is unreasonable to assume that persons attending auctions would not utilise these areas if necessary.

-       In response to claims of inadequate parking associated with the backpackers, takeaway food premises, the RSL and Air Force Club, the applicant has stated that the proposed auctions would generate demand approximately once every 3 weeks between 6:30pm and 8:30pm, not on a daily basis.   This would result in approximately 17 auctions per year.  As a percentage, this would apply to 4.6% of the total days of the year instead of 80 – 100% like existing commercial uses.

-       The applicant has stated that it is unlikely that people will stay for the entire 1.5 hours.  It is proposed that 8 auctions will be held every session each taking between 10 – 12 minutes.  On this basis the applicant believes that the maximum time any person would attend is 30 minutes.

-       On average, a maximum of 80 –100 people would attend the auctions for 8 properties.  This averages at 12 persons per item, including the vendor.  On the basis that people attending auctions will arrive as couples or groups, this would generate demand for 6 spaces for an average of 30 minutes.

-       The applicant has stated that a minimum of 8 spaces could be made available for people attending auctions in the basement car park of the building as not all employees need attend auctions.

-       Public transport is available at the front of the property in Clovelly Road with a bus service operated every 20-30 minutes.  A bus time table has been attached to the letter.

-       The proposed auction hours of 6:30pm to 8:00pm do not conflict with other commercial activities in the area whose core business hours are 9:00am to 5:30pm.

-       Problems with people parking illegally are matters to be addressed by the police and should not be a factor in determining the application.

-       In response to concern regarding the wording that auctions will be held approximately once every three weeks, the applicant has stated that this is to allow for a variation caused by public holidays.  The applicant has stated that there will be no more than 17 auctions held on site every year.

-       With regard to noise, the applicant has stated that people will enter and leave the site through Clovelly Road and it is not expected to cause any more additional noise than patrons leaving the existing restaurants or takeaway food premises. 

-       The applicant has also stated that people attending auctions are unlikely to linger around in the office or surrounding area.  In addition the proposed auction room is mechanically ventilated and does not contain any external openings. 

 

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  Engineering Issues

 

The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has advised that the following comments and condition are to be included with any approval of the section 96 application:

 

Comments

The applicant shall be advised that Council may be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

1. The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Clovelly Road to the underside of the proposed under-awning advertising sign, (i.e. the sign to be installed above the footpath in Clovelly Road), shall be 2.6 metres.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

The applicant shall be advised that Council may, in the future, be implementing a new policy (under Section 611 of the Local Government Act) wherein fees may apply for advertising in public airspace.

 

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.

 

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.’

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4,000 square metres and therefore the master planning requirements do not apply.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is prohibited.  However evidence was provided during the assessment of the Development Application No. 287/02 that the site enjoys existing use rights pursuant to section 108(1) of the EPA Act 1979 as amended.  Under the provision of this Act the existing use may, with consent, change to another use, which would otherwise be prohibited under the Act.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Parking

b.    Development Control Plan Outdoor Advertising

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1   Substantially the same

        The proposed modification represents substantially the same development.

 

9.2   Consideration of submissions

 

Issues relating to outdoor advertising have been addressed in section 10.1 of this report.

 

Issues regarding the availability of on street parking have been addressed in section 10.3 of this report.

 

Issues relating to hours of operation have been addressed in section 10.4 of this report.

 

With regard to the objectors concerns relating to notification of adjoining property owners, the proposal was notified in accordance with the requirements Clause 23 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

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     Outdoor Advertising

 

The applicant has proposed to erect a 1 metre by 1 metre by 0.4 metre illuminated under awning advertising sign to the front of the premises.  No objections are raised to this sign subject to a condition being imposed to ensure that light from the advertising signs does not cause nuisance to residential properties in the surrounding area.

 

10.2 Internal Alterations

 

The proposed internal alterations represent the installation of partition walls to the inside of the premises.  Councils Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan classify these as exempt development, and as such no objection is raised to this aspect of the proposal.

 

10.3 Traffic & Car Parking

 

The applicant has stated that they expect to hold auctions on a Wednesday or Thursday evenings between 6:30pm to 8:00pm approximately once every three weeks.  Each evening to which auctions are to be held between 1 and 8 properties are to be auctioned and anywhere between 30 to 100 people may attend the auctions at any one time.  

 

The applicant has provided a parking study from Christopher Hallam and Associates setting out the availability of on street parking in the area.  The parking study looked at vacant car parking spaces in the following streets:

 

-       The southern and northern sides of Clovelly Road from Knox to Beach Streets. 

-       The eastern side of Arden Street between Greville and Division Street,

-       The western side of Arden Street from Burnie to Quail Streets. 

-       The southern and northern sides of Dans Avenue between Arden Street and the rear of the Commercial centre along Clovelly Road.

-       The angle parking on the eastern side of Fewings Street. 

 

The study area represents 150 metres each direction from the site along Clovelly Road and 250 metres in each direction from the site along Arden Street.  The survey area has been divided into 15 separate areas representing one street block and restricted and unrestricted parking spaces.

 

The survey took place on Wednesday the 13th of November 2002 between the hours of 6:00pm and 9:00pm.  It was found that there were 136 parking spaces in the surveyed area. 

 

The applicant has stated that at 6:00pm, there were 33 vacant car spaces which fall to 28 at 6:30pm when auctions are due to start.  At 7:00pm 26 spaces are available, at 7:30pm the amount of vacant street car spaces in the area falls to 13, this rises to 19 at 8:00pm  but falls to 18 at the time auctions finish at 8:30pm.

 

The parking study that has been submitted with this application has serious deficiencies.  The parking study fails to provide an accurate measure of the average distribution of parking on a Wednesday and Thursday evening. The sample of information collected for the study was sampled during one Wednesday evening in November.  This could not be considered an accurate measure of the average distribution of vacant parking spaces on Wednesday and Thursday evenings as the study fails to take into account the available parking on a Thursday evenings and any other activities which may increase or decrease the demand for on street parking in the area. Without a large sample of data taken over more than one evening, an accurate representation of the available vacant street parking in the area cannot be ascertained.  In addition the area to which the parking study applies does not take into account the full length of Dans Avenue from Arden Street to Clovelly Road.  The study only applies from Arden Street to the end of the commercial sites in Clovelly Road.

 

The applicant has stated that the site currently contains eleven car parking spaces, which are used for staff parking.  Further information from Neustein Rosenberg Earnshaw Architects and Urban Planners has stated that the applicant is willing to provide a minimum of eight car parking spaces for use for people attending the auction with the staff parking being stacked parking.  The internal layout of the basement car park does not satisfy the requirements of the Councils Parking Development Control Plan-Parking, and the applicant has not supplied sufficient information demonstrating how the proposed parking arrangements will work and whether these parking arrangements will satisfy the relevant requirements.

 

In considering the scenario that a maximum of 100 people attend the auction and on the basis that an average of two people per car will attend, 50 car parking spaces would be required over the course of the evening.  If 8 auctions are held on that evening, and an even amount of people attend each auction approximately 12 to 13 people will attend each auction.  If by the applicants estimates people attending each auction lasts for 10-12 minutes, and the average time that someone stays in the area is 30 minutes, a maximum of 36 to 39 people will be in attendance at all times.  This would require 18 on street car parking spaces at 7:30pm, however, there would not be sufficient available parking in the survey area to accommodate the parking demand.  Furthermore, the majority of on street parking at 8pm and all of the on street parking at 8:30pm would be required to accommodate auction patrons.

 

The above scenario relies on people arriving immediately before or during the auction before they wish to attend and people leaving during or immediately after the auction they wished to attend. It does not take into consideration people bidding on multiple properties or more people attending the auction of one property than another, or people who arrive earlier and leave later than the specified 30 minutes.

 

The applicants parking study has stated that except at the time of 7:30pm, 40 patrons could be accommodated.  Under the applicant’s own estimate of an average of 2 people per car attending, 20 parking spaces will be required.  However at the times of 7:30pm, 8:00pm and 8:30pm less than 20 spaces will be available.

 

Notwithstanding the deficiencies of the sample data of the parking study, the above examples demonstrate the insufficient supply of on street parking available in the study area especially during the hours of 7:30pm to 8:30pm. 

 

The applicant has also stated that public transport is available at the front of the site, however, no data has been provided which demonstrates the percentage of people who typically attend property auctions and catch public transport.  Therefore without sufficient information demonstrating this, the applicant’s argument cannot be supported.

 

The parking study has not taken into account the increase in traffic flows which may be generated by a large group of people attending one site over such a  small period of time.

 

It is considered that the parking survey is deficient and does not provide accurate information of the available vacant street parking in the area. Notwithstanding, the parking study demonstrates the insufficient supply of on street parking available in the study area especially during the hours of 7:30pm to 8:30pm.

 

10.4 Hours of Operation

 

The applicant has stated that auctions will be held once every three weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday evening between 6:30 pm and 8:00pm with a maximum of 17 auctions per year to be held on site. The applicant has asked for operating hours of 6pm to 8:30pm to allow for people entering and leaving the site. This differs from what the applicant has requested  for the proposed amendment of condition 2.

 

The applicant has stated that  ‘Auctions are to be limited to week days, on average once every three weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm’.  There is no mention of auctions being held on Wednesday or Thursday evenings or that a maximum of 17 auction nights a year be held.  In addition, there is no mention of auctions starting at 6:30pm and finishing at 8:00pm.   It is therefore considered that the proposed condition 2 brought forward by the applicant is ambiguous and open to varied interpretation.

 

The applicant has stated that the proposed auction hours of 6:30pm to 8:00pm do not conflict with other commercial activities in the area whose core business hours are 9:00am to 5:30pm.  However, the Clovelly RSL does operate after 5:30pm and also generates a demand for on street parking.

 

10.5 Site Suitability

 

The proposal is located at the end of a small shopping strip, which is zoned residential and represents a non-conforming use enjoying existing use rights.  With the exception of the Backpackers Hostel on the corner of Arden Street and the RSL/ Air Force Club on the Corner of Knox Street and Clovelly Road, the proposed auction site will be the only use attracting people from large distances to the area.

 

The site contains onsite parking for staff, however, it does not contain sufficient parking to accommodate the expected amount of people who will attend the proposed auctions.  With a lack of onsite parking and no public car parking available except on street parking in the surrounding area, and after considering the information contained in the applicants parking study, it is considered that allowing auctions to be held on the site will adversely impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents .

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal for auctions to be held on the site represents significant intensification of a non-conforming use and is therefore not considered a suitable form of development in the context of the predominantly residential surrounding area. 

 

The parking study has not adequately assessed the impact of the proposal on the parking capacity of the area or demonstrated that the parking available on site is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand.  It is likely that the inadequacy of the onsite parking will result in the intrusion of carparking associated with a commercial activity within the surrounding residential area adversely impacting on the amenity of local residents.

 

It is therefore considered that proposed Section 96 Modification does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. D/287/2002 for Section 96 – Modification to alter Condition No. 2 in relation to hours of operation. Proposed hours 8:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 1pm Saturday.  Auctions limited to once every 3 weeks between 6:00pm and 8:30pm. New signage and alterations to inter layout at 266-270 Clovelly Road, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The applicant has not demonstrated that the parking available is adequate to cater for the peak parking demand of the proposed auctions.

 

2.       The proposed auctions represent a significant intensification of a non-conforming use and are therefore not considered a suitable form of development in the context of the predominantly residential surrounding area.

 

3.       The proposed auctions would be adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential properties in terms of noise, parking and traffic.

 

4.       The proposal would establish an undesirable precedent having regard to the submissions received and the circumstances of the case.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report Dated 25 February 2003

2. Parking Study by Cristopher Hallam and Associates Pty Ltd

3. Parking Study by Traffic and Transport Surveys Pty Ltd 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 76/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

23 Judge Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1145/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for Development Application No D/1145/2002 for alterations and additions to an existing building to enable its use for the purposes of a school

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 16 September, 2003

2. A4 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1145/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to an existing building to enable its use for the purposes of a school

PROPERTY:

 23 Judge Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Caldis Cook Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee, at the request of Councillors Matson, Backes and Greenwood.  The matter has received a high level of public interest with a number of submissions being made.  The application has involved several amendments and has been placed on public exhibition twice during the assessment process.

 

The proposal allows for the reallocation of classrooms from the main campus of Claremont College.  The scheme is generally compliant with the controls for non-residential development in residential zones, the only non-compliance being a small variation to the external wall height in the middle of the site.

 

The subject building is a heritage item listed in the Randwick LEP 1998.  The heritage aspects have been given careful consideration by Council staff as part of the assessment.  The external appearance of the original building will remain largely intact.  There will be a single storey addition to the rear of the building , which will in part replace an existing kitchen and laundry area.  The kitchen and laundry areas are to be demolished.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions, including a deferred commencement condition.  The deferred commencement will allow the applicant to seek necessary third party approvals for traffic management in Judge Lane.

 

1.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the conversion of an existing dwelling house for the use as an educational establishment by the adjacent Claremont College.  The works include significant alterations and additions to the rear of the building to provide for classrooms to be used in conjunction with the main campus of the school.

 

The development will allow for the use the property for educational purposes by extending the school grounds across Judge Lane.  The application involves conversion of the existing residence for school purposes along with the addition of two classrooms, an unenclosed covered area and two toilets.

 

The existing laundry, kitchen, garage and shed, which are all located to the rear of the property, will be demolished as part of the proposal.  Some of the existing vegetation, mostly in the form of large palm trees, will also be removed from the site.

 

The application does not seek to obtain Council's consent for an increase in either the number of students or teachers at the school.  These numbers are controlled by previous development consents for the College, which were issued by Council in the late 1990's.  This is an important aspect of the proposal as there has been great concern in the community about the potential increase in intensity of the site.  The previous conditions of consent that limited student numbers are still in force and these will be reiterated in the event that approval is granted to the application.

 

2.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Judge Street, at its intersection with Judge Lane.  The northern boundary of the property adjoins 21 Judge Street, which is currently used for residential purposes.

 

To the east of the property is a pedestrian walkway that provides pedestrian access to several properties fronting Heath Street.  The access way is for private use only and is currently cordoned of by a locked gate.

 

There are a number of other non-residential land uses in the immediate vicinity of the site.  These include the Red Cross facility in Coogee Bay Road (immediately across Judge Street from the site) and Brigidine College, which is on the opposite side of Coogee Bay Road.  The site is also located in close proximity to the commercial development that extends between Randwick and The Spot shopping centres.

 

The site is located within a Residential 2(b) zone.  Surrounding residential development includes a mix of dwelling houses, apartment buildings and semi-detached dwellings.

 

3.         HISTORY

 

3.1.      Site History

 

The subject site has a limited history of approvals.  The existing building appears to have remained largely intact for several decades.

 

Claremont College lodged an application for the main campus in 1998, which proposed alterations and additions to existing buildings including the erection of new classrooms.  The application also included internal alterations to existing buildings.  The report that assessed the application noted that the school had 11 existing classrooms and that there were 3 new classrooms proposed.  This allowed for the school to have 14 full classes based on approximately 30 students per class.  Council issued development consent to the application on 14 May 1998.

 

3.2.      Application History

 

The original application was lodged with Council on 4 December 2002.  This scheme proposed two classrooms at the rear of the existing dwelling placed in a two-storey addition.  The result was a significant wall height that projected beyond the alignment of both the existing dwelling and the adjoining dwelling at 21 Judge Street.

 

After an initial assessment of the application and having regard to the submissions made by residents in the area, the applicant was invited to consider the issues raised by residents, in particular the occupier of 21 Judge Street.  The applicant prepared an amended scheme that provided for a single storey addition to the rear of the dwelling.  This addition is lower in scale but extends along the northern boundary of the site.  The application and the amended plans were advertised as outlined in Section 4.1 of this report.

 

4.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

4.1.      Objections

 

Council undertook community consultation on several occasions resulting in a significant amount of public interest.  The original plans were advertised for period of 14 days between 15 January and 29 January 2003.  The advertising period resulted in submissions from 121 people plus a petition signed by 81 signatories, all objecting to the proposal.  A large number of the 121 submissions were pro forma letters.

 

The amended scheme was also advertised in accordance with Council's requirements.  The exhibition period between 9 July and 23 July resulted in 34 submissions.

 

The school have also prepared a plan of management, which they submitted as background material for the proposal.  An extended exhibition period of 14 days up until 18 August 2003 was provided for residents to view this plan.

 

The matters raised by the submissions received include:

 

·    Traffic congestion in and around the site.

·    Parking and the impacts the development will have on street parking in the vicinity of the site.

·    The safety and suitability of the pedestrian crossing in Judge Lane

·    The height and scale of the wall on the northern boundary of the development.

·    Noise generated from the use of the site both from play areas and the intended use of the building such as the music room.

·    The loss of natural light to the property to the north as a result of the wall heights.

·    The devaluation of properties as a result of the school use.

·    The potential that the landscaping will not be maintained.

·    The impact on the heritage status of the existing building

·    The inconsistency in proposed fencing styles.

·    The resultant floor space ratio being excessive for the site and the impacts that result.

·    The location of the garbage storage.

·    The location of the toilet block and the amenity impacts (such as odour) that may result.

·    The removal of plants and trees from the site.

·    The loss of privacy and impacts on visual outlook

·    The suitability of drainage proposed for the development and drainage problems for local area.

·    That the development is contrary to the existing character of locality, particularly its 2 (a) zoning.

·    Any increase in school population and the impacts that come from increase intensity of the use.

·    Crime issues and the level of security in and around the site.

·    School too close to fence.

·    Reducing Judge Lane to one way lane interferes with access to property

·    Insufficient setback from northern boundary

·    Building is too bulky and inconsistent with the area

·    Does not provide sufficient information to allow a reasonable basis for objection

 

Comments

 

The issues raised have been were comprehensive, some covering procedural aspects of the application and other simply referring to social and environmental impacts.  The assessment in this report has focused on the concerns regarding the environmental and social aspects of the development.

 

In particular, issues such as bulk and form, overshadowing, privacy and noise generation, traffic and parking, safety and security area all addressed in Section 7 of this report. The assessment carried out in this section has determined that these issues will not result in significant impacts or are resolved by conditions of development consent.

 

Council's technical officers have also undertaken detailed assessments of the traffic, parking, landscaping and heritage aspects of the development.  These have also been found to be satisfactory and are discussed in Section 5 of this report.  The advice from internal referrals has also included a number of conditions of development consent, which have been included in the recommendation in the event that Council supports the proposal.

 

Apart from traffic generation and parking, a significant issue has been the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from 21 Judge Street.  The original application was unsatisfactory in this regard and the applicant was advised accordingly.  The plans were changed to provide for a single storey structure with a much reduced scale.  The amended plans still resulted in a length of building on the common boundary with the neighbours that would have required removal of existing planting and screening in that location.

 

The applicant was further advised of this situation and has supplied an amended plan showing classroom 2 to be setback 1.1 metres from the northern boundary.  This allows for the retention of four (4) palm trees that when incorporated with palms on 21 Judge Street provide a visual buffer to the building.

 

Many of the submissions raised concern about the potential increased intensity of the school use through increase student and staff numbers.  The application does not seek to increase these numbers.  They are controlled by Council's earlier consent for the Claremont College Campus as mentioned.

 

5.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

5.1.      Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services

 

The Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services has raised no objection to the proposal, and has recommended a number of standard conditions be attached to any approval.  Conditions requested by the Manager of  Environmental Health and Building Services have been included in the proposed conditions of consent.

 

5.2.      Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

Council’s Director of Assets & Infrastructure has provided the following comment:

 

An amended application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing residential dwelling at the above site for the purpose of use as part of Claremont College Primary School.

 

The subject development site is separated from the existing College buildings by Judge Lane.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are twenty six (26) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located within the rear yard of the site, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

1.    Five (5) Kentia Palms located towards the central part of the site, within the footprint of the proposed extension. These trees are in excess of 6 metres in height appear to be in good condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Due to the extent of the proposed works, there will be no room available to relocate these palms within the site. As such, permission should be granted for the removal of these palms. 

 

2.    Three (3) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located along the northern property boundary. These trees are in excess of 6 metres in height appear to be in good condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The amended plans show these palms to be retained and it is considered that this is achievable, however, tree protection measures will be required to be applied.

 

3.    Six (6) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located immediately east of the existing dwelling. These trees range from 3-8 metres tall and appear to be in good health. Permission should be granted for the removal of the northern most palm in this stand (as shown on the submitted drawings) and the remaining palms should be retained and protected as part of this application.

Traffic comments

 

To facilitate safe passage of pedestrians across Judge Lane (which separates the existing College and the proposed new classrooms at 23 Judge Street), the applicant has proposed a number of alternatives (refer to the ‘Assessment of Traffic Issues’ by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates dated May 2003).

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has inspected the site and does not support the installation of speed humps or a pedestrian crossing at the subject location. There is insufficient vehicle and pedestrian movements to warrant a pedestrian crossing, and speed humps are not deemed suitable in this situation. Instead it is suggested that a ‘Shared zone’ be implemented in Judge Lane, between Heath Street and Judge Street.

 

The shared zone would allow pedestrians and motor vehicles to share the road space, with a speed limit of 10km/h, and right-of-way for pedestrians. This shared zone should be marked out by entry and exit thresholds, appropriate signage, and may also include coloured/textured paving or landscaping, to make it distinctive from other streets.

 

It is noted that authorization of shared zones is not delegated to Council. Shared zones are speed limits and approval to install them must be obtained from the RTA. Consequently the application for a shared zone will need to be approved by the Local Traffic Committee and the Speed Management Branch of the RTA. All costs associated with implementing the shared zone to the satisfaction of the Local Traffic Committee and the RTA shall be met by the applicant.

 

Should the Local Traffic Committee or the Speed Management Branch of the RTA object to the installation of a shared zone at this location, the EPCD Department is advised that the applicant may need to submit a S96 application to modify development consent to allow for implementation of alternative pedestrian crossing / traffic calming measures as deemed appropriate by the Local Traffic Committee.

 

Parking Comments

The statement of environmental effects states that the new classrooms and amenities will not see an increase in the number of students at the school over the previously approved limit. It does not however, appear to comment on staff numbers.

 

The proposed development at 23 Judge Street removes the existing garage to make room for two new classrooms. The AIS Department raises concerns regarding the lack of parking provided for existing school and notes that the proposal may increase the parking demands further by providing two extra classrooms that will need to be staffed.

 

It is recommended that the EPCD Department determine whether the proposal will result in any additional staff members at the school, and if so, provision should be made for onsite parking at a minimum rate of 0.7 spaces per additional staff member as specified in Council’s DCP for Parking.

 

Should the EPCD Department approve the development in its current form, it is recommended that the approval note that the consent does not grant approval for any additional students or staff at the school (beyond those limits already established for the existing school).

 

Drainage Comments

On-site detention of stormwater is required for the redeveloped portion of the site.

 

Conditions imposed by the Assets and Infrastructure Department have been included in the proposed conditions of consent.

 

5.3.      Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Officer has provided the following comment, as the site is listed as a heritage item under LEP 1998.  There were some initial concerns regarding the work to the heritage item but the amended plans have largely overcome these.

 

The subject site is occupied by a two storey Federation style villa listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  The Randwick Heritage Inventory Sheet for the property describes it as a “magnificent two storey Federation house, c.1900, … little altered, … One of Randwick’s better Federation houses.  Highly individual in design.  Well planted grounds on a good corner site.”  The dwelling is designed to respond to its corner location and addresses both Judge Street and Judge Lane.

 

The original application proposed internal changes to allow use of the existing building to provide classroom and support spaces for Claremont College.  The original application also proposed construction of a new two storey addition to the rear of the building and the rebuilding of the outbuilding at the rear of the site.  A number of planning and heritage concerns were raised in relation to the original application, and amended plans have now been received.  As compared to the original application, the current application proposes a single storey rather than a two storey rear addition.  The existing outbuilding is to be demolished.  The current application apparently does not seek to rely on Clause 47 of the LEP- Conservation Incentives.

 

In relation to the new single storey addition, it is noted that the proposal will involve the demolition of the existing single storey kitchen and laundry wing at the rear of the dwelling.  It is noted that this existing rear wing however has been somewhat modified by the replacement of the earlier skillion roof with an upper level balcony.  The new rear wing will include two classrooms, storage and amenity areas and a verandah.  The new rear wing will be considerably bulkier than the existing rear wing in terms of footprint, but of single storey scale.

 

The proposal will widen the footprint of the building from around 4.5m to 8.5m and increase its length from around 10m to over 20m (the full depth of the property).  The enlargement of the footprint of the rear wing will halve the width of the existing rear garden.  The proposed rear wing will somewhat impact on the landscape setting of the heritage item.  It is noted however that a landscaped edge, including a number of existing palms, will be able to be maintained to the Judge Lane boundary.

 

The height of the proposed addition is minimised by lowering the ground floor level of the addition in relation to the existing building.  The addition will be secondary in scale to the existing building, allowing it to remain subservient to it.  The new classroom is generally roofed by an assymmetrical pitched roof which provides a northfacing skylight.  The storage areas at the rear of the site are roof under several lower pitched roofs.  The new stairway is roofed by skillion roof having a matching pitch to the main roof of the dwelling.  The location of the new stairway will require the existing verandah to be reduced in length at ground and first floor levels.  The link will however assist in providing a transition in scale between new and existing.  The modern design of the addition will assist in allowing the new fabric to be differentiated from original fabric.  Full details of materials and finishes will need to be provided to ensure that the addition does not draw attention to itself and detract attention from the original building on the site.

 

The original application was accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Caldis Cook Group.  According to historical research carried out by Caldis Cook, the dwelling on the site was constructed in 1911.  The section of the Statement covering Proposed Upgrade does not indicate whether or not upper level ceilings are to be retained.  The Statement includes the following Conservation Policies:

·    Ensure that the use of the building and rooms can ultimately be reversed for residential purposes

·    Maintain the scale and character of the rooms and corridors

·    Preserve and maintain remaining original ornate plaster ceilings and cornices where appropriate.

 

In relation to the internal changes, it is noted that the existing ground floor layout to the main rooms of the dwelling is to remain largely unchanged, but that a number of walls are to be removed at the upper level.  The Statement of Heritage Impact notes that a number of internal changes have been made, but that much internal detail remains including ceilings and cornices, skirtings, architraves and doors.  A number of fireplaces have been removed, but one ground level and all upper level fireplaces and mantles remain.  The drawings indicate that the existing leadlight window to the stairway is to be blocked up, as the northern wall of the building is located on the boundary.  It is not clear whether any other options have been explored for the retention of the stairway window.  Consent conditions should be included requiring resolution of this issue prior to construction certificate approval.  A site visit has confirmed that upper level walls are generally original, other than a partition wall dividing the large room on the southern side of the building into front and rear halves.  Several upper level ceilings have been replaced or covered over.  The heritage/conservation architect has advised that the proposal will incorporate nib walls and beams to allow the original layout of the dwelling to be interpreted and to facilitate the retention of original detailing including woodwork and ceilings.  Consent conditions should be included requiring evidence of the detail and integrity of original upper level spaces to be retained.

 

The suggested conditions of development consent have been provided in the recommendation to this report.

 

6.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B and is permissible with Council’ s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 have been considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Landscape Area

 

 

 

 

Clause 31(2)

40% of site (233m²)

45% (261m²)

Yes

 

FSR - Clause 32

0.65:1 (378.6m²)

0.64:1 (372m2)

Yes

 

Building Height

 

 

 

 

Clause 33(2)

9.5m building height

8.2m (maximum)

Yes

 

Clause 33(4)

7m external wall height

8.2m (maximum)

No (SEPP 1 submitted)

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

 

43

Heritage Item

Yes

See Section 5.3 of report on Heritage

 

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

N/A

 

 

Clause 32 - Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal meets the requirements for floor space ratio for non-residential development within a 2(b) zone.  The original scheme had a larger floor space ratio but the amendments that have been requested and undertaken have reduced the overall floor space. The proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the floor space ratio.

 

 

 

 

Clause 33(4) - External Wall Height

 

The external wall height is exceeded in the middle of the site where the new stair well joins the existing residence.  Despite being a minor variation, it requires a SEPP 1 objection to allow Council to consider the matter.

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 Objection that states:

 

·    The existing heritage listed house has an external wall height of up to nearly 9 metres that establishes an external wall height for the site. The proposed restoration and conversion does not alter the wall height of the existing dwelling. The maximum wall height of the proposed roof over the new stair case is approximately 8.0 metres, slightly less than that of the existing house.

 

·    There are to be no changes to private or public views arising from the conversion and additions, nor is there any more than minimal impact on adjoining properties given the relative locations of the various dwellings and other buildings on surrounding properties.  In particular, the proposed roof over this stair is set back from the building edge and will therefore be fore-shortened.

 

·    Given the circumstances of the site, its slope, the location and floor levels of the existing dwelling, the area available for the additions and the requirements of the Education Regulations and the School, there is little chance in achieving external wall heights in the additions that comply with Council’s standard.

 

·    The proposed additions have been designed to fit in with an existing Heritage Item and to make classrooms and grounds with a high level of amenity.

 

The applicant provides the following conclusion in the SEPP 1 Objection:

 

This application for conversion, restoration, alterations and additions to an existing dwelling does not increase or change the height of the walls of the main part of the existing dwelling. The additions that replace the kitchen and laundry do however require the inclusion of a new staircase with associated roof.

 

The proposed variation to the external wall height standard will not result in any impacts to adjoining development either in terms of bulk and scale or loss of amenity.  The encroachment is located in the middle of the property and is below the wall heights of the existing building.  The proposed staircase is attached to the current structure and the wall height, which also exceed Council's requirements.  The wall height of the new section decreases as the stairs move down and away from the existing building.  This proposal is simply connecting the existing levels of the dwelling to permit reasonable access by students.

 

The proposed wall is setback over 3 metres from the northern boundary and there will be no unreasonable visual impacts to the occupiers of 21 Judge Street or surrounding properties.  This scheme reduces the wall height along the northern boundary by removing the current kitchen area and roof terrace.  The roof terrace has an existing solid balustrade, which exacerbates the perceived height when viewed from 21 Judge Street, which will also be removed as part of this proposal.

 

The height does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing of adjoining development given that the property is on the northern side of Judge Lane.  The proposed development will be effectively screened from the laneway by the existing and future landscaping.

 

It is considered that despite the proposed variation to the external wall height standard, the proposal is acceptable in the circumstances and is consistent with the objectives of SEPP 1

 

Clause 43 – Development of a Heritage Item and Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of a Heritage Item

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to clauses 43 and 46 of the RLEP98 (refer to section 5.3 of this report).

 

Clause 47 – Conservation Incentives

 

The applicant has suggested that Clause 47 of the RLEP 1998 applies.  Clause 47 allows Council to dispense with certain planning controls where it is considered that the scheme will result in no amenity impacts and that the survival of the item relies on the proposed use.  Council's Heritage Advisor has not accepted this proposition and the applicant has therefore relied on SEPP 1 Objections to seek variations to the applicable development standards.

 

b.         SEPP 55

 

SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated.  No site investigations have been carried out, however the longstanding use of the site for residential purposes substantially reduces the likelihood of contamination.

 

6.1.      Policy Controls

 

§ DCP – Parking 1998

 

a.         Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

Council's AIS department regarding car parking and traffic management has assessed the proposal.  The comments from this department can be found in Section 5.2 of this report.  As there are no increase in either students or teachers in this application, the car-parking requirement does not change.

 

7.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       The likely impacts of development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

 

Built Form

 

The original application provided for a two-storey addition of significant height and visual presence when viewed from properties to the north of the site.  The applicant was advised of these concerns and consequently reconsidered the proposed design solution.

 

The scheme also involves the demolition of alterations and additions that were undertaken some time ago to the existing dwelling.  These include the kitchen area and the laundry, both of which are at the rear of the dwelling and located along the northern boundary of the site.

 

The potential impact of the scheme when viewed from 21 Judge Street has been considered.  The proposal will reduce the height of the structure where the kitchen is located.  The height will increase where the laundry is currently located.  The proposed extension continues past the alignment of the existing laundry and whilst single storey in design, it will be viewable from the adjoining property.

 

The scheme required the removal of four (4) palm trees along the northern boundary of the site.  These palms, when combined with palms located on the southern boundary of 21 Judge Street, provide a significant visual screen to the south from the rear yard of 21 Judge Street.  The removal of the four (4) palms and their replacement with a solid wall was considered unreasonable in terms of the resultant visual impact.  The wall would be visually intrusive as a hard structure in place of what was a soft landscaped screen.

 

As mentioned, the applicant was requested to amend the proposal to take these issues into account.  An amended ground floor plan showing the northern wall of the second classroom (which is essentially the new wall that extends past the existing laundry wall) being setback from the northern boundary by 1 metre from the boundary will allow the retention of the existing palm trees. The result is that the wall is not only further away from the common boundary but the existing soft landscaped screen of palms can remain.  The amendments now mean that the proposal is visually acceptable when viewed from the rear yard of 21 Judge Street.

 

The form of the development also provides some positive outcomes for the occupiers of 21 Judge Street.  As discussed in the Privacy and Noise section below, the bulk and form of the development will provide a buffer between the school and its functions and the property at 21 Judge Street.  The most notable benefit is the potential for reduction in noise as a result of the school building being located between the playground areas and the residential development on adjoining land.

 

There is currently a garage and storage room with a pitched tile roof located on the southern boundary of the site.  These will be removed and replaced by the new building.  The change in bulk will only be minor and there will be minimal impacts resulting from this aspect of the development.  It is not intended that there be any openings from the building onto the pedestrian pathway that acts as a buffer between the development and neighbouring residential development to the east.  This is further assisted by the garage structure located at the rear of the property, which fronts Heath Street and has access via Judge Lane.

 

It is considered that with the recent changes to the scheme, the proposal is now acceptable in respect to built form.

 

Relationship to existing streetscape and context

 

The proposed works are located to the rear of the existing dwelling at 23 Judge Street.  The result is that the development has little impact on the streetscape when viewed from Judge Street.

 

The development will be viewable from Judge Lane but this streetscape has less prominence than the Judge Street frontage.  In any event, the proposed additions are now single storey in nature and will be provided behind both existing and future landscaping on the site.  The appearance of the development from the public domain is considered acceptable.

 

Density

 

The density of the development is not controlled by the amount of floor space on the site, rather the proposal does not seek to increase the number of students that will attend the school and complies with Council's floor space standard.  The proposed density is considered acceptable

 

The building bulk and form has been discussed as a separate matter earlier in this report.

 

Privacy and Noise

 

At present the development on 23 Judge Street provides little in the way of a buffer to noise generated from the main school playground area.  As a consequence, the noise generated from students playing during recess and lunch times is quite audible from the rear yard area of 21 Judge Street and other surrounding properties.

 

The proposal will result in a wall adjacent to the common boundary between 21 and 23 Judge Street.  This wall and the associated structure would act as a significant buffer to the noise generated from the main campus area.  The amount of outdoor space around the building at 23 Judge Street is such that the area will not be used for outdoor play activities.  These will continue to be located on the main school campus.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing school campus provides some noise generation, the current application will not add to the situation.  In contrast, it is likely that there will be some overall improvement, as the new building will provide a sound buffer to adjoining residential development.

Overshadowing

 

The proposed development is located on the southern side of the residential property at 21 Judge Street and will not have any unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the adjoining dwelling and yard area of 21 Judge Street.

 

The scheme would cast late afternoon shadows on the property to the east but these shadows would not be significantly greater than shadows cast by the existing structures and vegetation on the adjoining land.  The existing garages on both the subject site and the adjoining site to the east would contribute significantly to this overshadowing.  The land also falls away from the site to the east and this exacerbates overshadowing from these existing structures.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the development does not entail any unreasonable overshadowing impacts for adjoining properties.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to overshadowing.

 

Energy Efficiency

 

The proposal achieves solar access through skylight windows, which run the length of the building.  These windows provide both light and ventilation to the classrooms below.  The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to energy efficiency.

 

Social Impacts

 

The scheme makes a positive social contribution as it reinforces the viability of the school and its ability to provide education in the local neighbourhood.  In the absence of any unreasonable environmental or amenity impacts the ongoing provision of a diverse range of educational choices is seen as a positive social contribution to the community in the circumstances.  The school's long-term presence on the site provides some indication of the role that it plays in the community and the ongoing support from the local area for its ongoing operation.

 

Safety and security

 

Safety and security are often issues for schools given the nature of the use and the lack of evening and weekend use of the facilities.  The school's management plan indicates that there is a "back to base" security system on the building and that that there is someone at the school between the hours of 6am and 6pm.

 

It is not considered that the use of 23 Judge Street would significantly change the security and safety arrangement of the school and the neighbourhood.  The surrounding residential development in part acts as a deterrent to crime given the high levels of surveillance of the property from surrounding dwellings and the public domain.

 

Waste

 

The school already operates a waste management process and the additional uses are not likely to significantly change this situation.  In order to ensure the ongoing management of waste, an appropriate condition of development consent has been attached to the recommendation to this report.

 

8.2       Operation

 

The proposed hours of operation of 8.30am to 4.00pm Monday to Friday are consistent with the operation of the existing school.  They are typical of the function of a primary school of this type and in this location.  The school plan of management further outlines the activities of the school and the use of buildings at various times.  The proposed hours of operation are considered satisfactory

 

8.3       Traffic and Parking

 

The issue of traffic and parking is the most significant concern raised by the local residents.  The existing school operation has an intense traffic period before school and again between 3pm and 3:30pm.  This often results in traffic congestion and parking issues as children are dropped off and picked up.

 

The limitation of student and staff number means that the intensity of the use in terms of the traffic generation should remain relatively unchanged.  A more significant issue arises as a result of the need to move students across Judge Lane throughout the school day.  This requires the removal of some on street parking in Judge Lane as well as creating a potential conflict point for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Council's AIS Department concluded that the issue of pedestrian safety could be resolved in a number of ways.  The preferred solution is to provide a shared pedestrian and vehicle zone in Judge Lane but a deferred commencement condition has been suggested to ensure that the outcome is approved by the various third parties involved in making this decision.

 

If the applicant is unable to obtain the appropriate approvals for this treatment, there are workable alternatives that will still be satisfactory to Council.  On this basis, the provisions for pedestrian access between 23 Judge Street and the main campus are considered satisfactory.

 

The provision of a shared zone may require that the loss of several on street parking spaces in Judge Lane.  The loss of these spaces is not desirable given the lack of on street parking in the area but the proposed traffic solution will result in a better movement of vehicles and pedestrians in Judge Lane.  The application does not warrant refusal on the basis of the loss of these spaces.

 

There are also a number of other factors, which affect on street parking, such as the proximity of the site to Brigidine College, the Hospital and the Randwick commercial centre.  These land uses all erode on street parking in the vicinity of the school and it is therefore difficult to attribute a lack of on street parking to the school use alone.  The extension of the school onto 23 Judge Street without increasing student numbers should not have a major impact on this situation.

 

Overall, it is not considered that the application entails any unreasonable impacts for traffic and parking in the surrounding area.

 

8.4       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site has all the necessary utilities and services required for the proposed school use.  It is located in proximity to public transport.  The site is considered suitable for the intended purpose.

 

 

8.5       The public interest

 

The submissions received by Council indicate that public interest in the application is divided into two extreme positions.  The school has a number of supporters for its continued growth and viability and yet there are a number of local residents that are opposed to any development that entails environmental impacts for the entire locality.

 

The environmental impacts from proposed development are minimised and reasonable levels of amenity to surrounding residents will be maintained.  It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the public interest.

 

8.         CONCLUSION

 

The development has involved careful consideration pursuant to the requirement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.  Particular regard has been paid to the significant public interest and the potential conflicts in the neighbourhood.  The application is limited to reallocation of uses within the site rather than an increase in the intensity of the use.  The student and staff numbers remain as already approved by Council.

 

The potential environmental impacts have been limited by the redesign of the scheme and are considered to be acceptable in the circumstances.  The scheme is consistent with the planning objectives for the site having regard to its zoning and location and maintains levels of amenity for surrounding properties.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a.         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. 1145/02 for the renovation of the existing dwelling and additions to the rear and the buildings subsequent use for school purposes at 23 Judge Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The applicant shall comply with the following deferred commencement conditions prior to the development consent becoming operational:

 

1.         The applicant shall submit to council plans for the construction of a shared zone in Judge Lane. The plans shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer in accordance with the relevant Austroads and RTA guidelines.

 

The shared zone plans shall be approved by the Local Traffic Committee and the Speed Management Branch of the RTA prior to the development consent becoming operational.

 

The applicant is advised to Contact Council’s Traffic Engineer on 9399 0914 or 9399 0927 in relation to this matter.

 

2.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building.  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.

 

3.         Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.  Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted.

 

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 plans numbered DA-01A, DA-02A, DA-04A, DA-05A, DA-06A, dated 23/6/03 and received by Council on 23/6/03, and DA-03A dated 11/09/03 and received on 12/09/03 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application (including the A4 plan dated as received on the 12/9/2003 which show the setback of Classroom 2 a distance of 1.1 metres from the northern boundary), except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS:

2.         This consent does not extend student and staff numbers beyond those allowed in Development Consent No 157/98.

 

3.         The existing leadlight window to the stairway landing is to be retained in its current location, whether or not the opening in the wall remains.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

4.         The proposed first floor layout is to incorporate nib walls and beams as evidence of the original layout of the building and to facilitate patching of plasterwork.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

5.         A Schedule of Conservation Works for the existing building shall be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.  This Plan shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

6.         The conservation policies and maintenance program outlined in the Schedule of Conservation Works are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.  An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the implementation of the endorsed Conservation Plan to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate techniques.

 

7.         An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Three copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

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:

 

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

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

 

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

 

10.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council prior to

 

a.         the commencement of works

 

certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant conditions of approval.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

12.       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.

 

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

 

14.       The existing levels of fire safety within the premises are to be upgraded to achieve an adequate level of fire safety in accordance with the provisions of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a report prepared by a suitably qualified person or accredited certifier is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

The fire safety report must detail the measures considered appropriate to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia, to protect persons using the building, and to facilitate their egress from the building in the event of fire and to restrict the spread of fire.

 

The fire safety upgrading works are to be included in the construction certificate and be implemented prior to occupation of the new building or part.

 

The fire safety report is specifically required to address the following provisions of the Building Code of Australia, as applicable:

 

a.   EP1.1                     -           hose reel systems

b.   EP1.2                     -           fire extinguishers

c.   EP4.1 & EP 4.2     -           emergency lighting and exit signs

d.   DP1 to DP6           -           access and egress

e.   DP7 to DP9           -           access for people with disabilities

 

15.       Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

16.       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 and detailing 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, are to be fully complied with and incorporated into the plans and specifications 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.

 

17.       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.

 

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

 

a.   all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

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

 

19.       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.

 

20.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to 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:

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    Sediment control measures.

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

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

 

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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

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

 

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

·    location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·    location of building materials for construction;

·    provisions for public safety;

·    dust control measures;

·    site access location and construction

·    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·    protective measures for tree preservation;

·    provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·    location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·    construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

37.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

39.       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.

 

40.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

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

 

43.       Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1. Details of the proposed access, facilities and carparking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS

 

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

 

44.       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.

 

a.         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.

 

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

45.       The applicant shall meet all costs associated with design and construction of a shared zone in Judge Lane to the satisfaction of the Local Traffic Committee, the RTA and Council’s Design manager.

 

It is noted that installation of the approved shared zone in Judge Lane shall be undertaken by a Council approved contractor in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". These works shall be completed prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

46.       The applicant shall meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to remove the redundant vehicular crossing located adjacent to the eastern property boundary and to reinstate the area with turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

49.       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:

 

50.       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.

 

51.       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.

 

52.       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.

 

53.       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

 

54.       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.

 

55.       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.

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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.

 

58.       On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the redeveloped portion of the site does not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the redeveloped portion of the 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.

 

59.       All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity either:

 

60.       To the kerb and gutter or drainage system in either Judge Street or Judge Lane;  or

 

61.       Via a private drainage easement through an adjoining private property (or properties) to Council’s kerb and gutter or drainage system.

 

62.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

63.       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.

 

64.       The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

65.       The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

66.       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).

 

67.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

68.       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.

 

69.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

 

prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

72.       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.

 

73.       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:

 

·    The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

·    Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·    Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

·    The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

·    The orifice size(s) (if applicable); and

·    Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

74.       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.

 

75.       Seepage water must not be collected and drained from the site.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

76.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees.

 

a)   Two (2) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms), one being the northern most palm of those located immediately east of the existing dwelling and other being the eastern most palm of those located along the southern property boundary as well as the four smaller palms located where the proposed pedestrian refuge is shown on the plans.

 

b)   Five (5) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms), located within the center of the site, within the building footprint. 

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

77.       In order to ensure the retention of the five (5) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located immediately east of the existing dwelling and the seven (7) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located along the southern property boundary, and the three (3) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located along the northern property boundary in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.   The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees to prevent damage to the tree trunks.

 

Details of the proposed fencing are required to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate. This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

c.   Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 1.5 metres of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist and Council’s Landscape technician 9399 0613, with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

d.   In order to avoid damage to the palm trees, the footings to be used adjacent to the three (3) Kentia Palms located along the northern property boundary are to be of a suspended slab construction, with no change to the existing soil levels. Details showing the exact locations of proposed piers and slab levels are to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

e.   The installation of woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm within a radius of 1.5 metres from the tree trunks.

 

f.    Watering of the trees three times a week for the duration of the demolition and construction periods.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

78.       In order to ensure the retention of the five (5) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located immediately east of the existing dwelling and the seven (7) Howea forsteriana (Kentia Palms) located along the southern property boundary, in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

g.   The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees to prevent damage to the tree trunks.

 

This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

h.   Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 1.5 metres of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

i.    The installation of woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm within the fenced off protection area as described in Point c.

 

j.    Watering of the tree (within the fenced off area) three times a week for the duration of the demolition and construction periods.

 

ADVISINGS

 

A.        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.

 

B.        The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a.   Part D1                  -        Provisions for escape

            b.   Clause D2.4           -        Separation of rising and descending stair flights

            c.   Part D3                  -        Access for people with disabilities

            d.   Part E1                   -        Fire fighting equipment

            e.   Part E4                   -        Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

            f.    Part F5                   -        Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

WILLANA ASSOCIATES

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1          By Councillor Matthews – Schedule for Footpath Construction in 2003/2004. (R/0639/01 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager provide to all Councillors a list which outlines the schedule for new footpath construction in 2003/2004 in all Wards within the City of Randwick within (7) days.

 

11.2     By Councillor Matthews – Installation of Speed Humps at the Loop at La Perouse. (98/S/0974 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That due to excessive speed by car drivers that a report be prepared for Council to consider the installation of speed humps in the Loop at La Perouse.

 

 

11.3     By Councillor Tracey – Traffic Calming Devices in Dangar, Wentworth and King Streets, Randwick. (R/0217/02 xr R/0765/01 xr R/0765/02 xr R/0442/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That a report be prepared detailing Council’s plans and approved development obligations for traffic calming devices, traffic and pedestrian safety and other general traffic management issues in the Dangar, Wentworth and King St, Randwick vicinities.

 

11.4          By Councillor Andrews – Jack Vanny Memorial Reserve, Marine Parade, Maroubra. (98/S/2754 xr98/S/0178)

 

That

 

a)         Council investigate the installation of outdoor exercise equipment (similar to those located at Bondi Beach) at Jack Vanny Memorial Park, Marine Parade, Maroubra (between Bond and Sackville Street); and

 

b)         A report come to the Council as to the cost of such project.

 

11.5     By Councillor Andrews – Replacement of Fence between 2 Macleay Street, South Coogee and Gollan Park.  (R/0490/0xr 98/S/1027 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council share the cost in relation to the replacement of the dividing fence between No. 2 Macleay Street South Coogee and Gollan Park which is under care, control and management of Council.

 

11.6     By Councillor Matson – Apology for failing to meet Council resolution on Street Trees in Abbott Street Coogee. (R/0004/03 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council letter boxes Abbott Street, Coogee apologising for failing to meet the spirit of its 1998 resolution and that it would adopt a policy of consistent consultation prior to commencing significant streetscape works and reiterates its recognition that street trees are a sensitive issue in the street.

11.7          By Councillor Matson – Abidance by NOI recommendations on Bundock St Site. (D/0709/2003 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That as a response to recent complaints of dust and vibration problems in residences around the Department of Defence’s Bundock Street site Council will:

 

a)                  Determine if all conditions of the Notice of Intent (NOI) are being enforced by Defence contractors; and

b)                  If not, will delegate authority to the General Manager to pursue any legal options and other avenues of appeal available to enforce these conditions.

 

11.8          By Councillor Matson – Concern over Asbestos Amelioration at Prince Henry Site.  (98/S/1648 xr D/043/2003 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council will as a priority:

 

a)                  Take measures to assure itself that appropriate asbestos decontamination procedures sufficient to protect local residents are being implemented on the Prince Henry Hospital site; and

 

b)         Contact the director of the demolition operations to urge the convening of information nights for local residents and interested Councillors to disseminate greater community understanding of these decontamination measures.

 

11.9          By Councillor Matson – Partnerships Register.  (98/S/5137 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council:

 

a)                  Congratulates South Sydney City Council on their Partnerships Register initiative;

b)                  Supports in principal the establishment of a Randwick Partnerships Register; and

c)                  Officers investigate and develop this proposal, reporting back after South Sydney has conducted its community consultation and made a final decision on the implementation of their Register.

 

11.10   By Councillor Matson – Motion on the Australia US Free Trade Agreement for Local Councils.  (98/S/4726 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council:

 

a)                  Believes public policy regarding the regulation, funding and provision of essential services should be made democratically by governments at the national, state and local level and should not be subject to a trade agreement;

b)                  Calls on the Federal Government to fully consult with state and local government about the implications of the AUSFTA negotiations for local government services and regulation;

c)                  Calls on the Federal Government to support the clear exclusion of public services from the AUSFTA, including local government services;

d)                  Calls on the Federal Government to oppose any proposals which would allow corporations to challenge regulation or sue governments; and

e)                  Writes to the Minister for Trade concerning the above and submits the above motions for adoption by the Australian Local Government Association.

 

11.11   By Councillor Procopiadis – Women’s Athletic Field.  (98/S/1275 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the Mayor meets with the Minister of Lands with the view of having the Government decontaminate the land known as the Womens Athletic Fields and restore the playing are for the use of various sports, remove the Trust and give the fields to Council to maintain and hire.

 

11.12   By Councillor Whitehead – 9 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra.  (D/1136/2001 xr 98/S/0178

 

That a report be provided to Council regarding Council’s resolution 340 of Tuesday, 10 December, 2002 in relation to the Development Application No. D/1136/01 “A” Section 96 for the property at 9 Ron Filbee Place, Maroubra, with specific reference to the deletion of the parapet walls along the perimeter of the building, set-backs of guard rails and increased depth of stair entry to deck and, also, on the matters arising from that resolution, including the issues of orders and supplementary action.


CONFIDENTIAL

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 76/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

95-97 MASON STREET & 102 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA

 

DATE:

18 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/02/00827

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

This matter is considered to be CONFIDENTIAL under Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege.

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a confidential report by Stuart Harding about the Development Application for 95-97 Mason Street and 102 Boyce Road, Maroubra. The report is confidential and privillegded as the matter is currently the subject of an appeal in the Land and Environment Court.

 

Council at its meeting of 13 May, 2003 refused the appplication for the construction of a six storey multi-unit housing development on the subject site. Stuart Harding was appointed as Council’s expert witness with regards to the proceeding in the Land and Environment Court. The Land and Environment Court’s Expert Witness Standard Directions requires the experts assigned by the parties to meet and discuss issues before the Court. The process which is mandatory is aimed to resolve issues before the Court as far as possible before the matter proceeds to a full hearing. The outcome of the expert witness conference is reported to the court via a joint report.

 

Council’s and the applicant’s expert witnesses have met and agreed to a joint position. Council’s expert witness states that he is satisfied that the changes proposed to the subject development as part of the joint conference adequately addresses all issues raised by Council in refusing the application. In accordance with the Court’s procedure a joint expert witness report will be prepared. The report will highlight that the common position of expert witnesses and consequently there are no outstanding issues to be resolved.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1          That the Council note Stuart Harding’s report.

 

2.         That Council agree in principle to enter into consent orders in respect of the proceedings before the Land and Environment Court subject to those orders being satisfactory to the Court.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Report by Stuart Harding dated 17 September, 2003.

2. A4 Configuration plans as amended.

3.Development Application Report considered 13 May, 2003. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report by Stuart Harding 

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

95-97 MASON STREET & 102 BOYCE ROAD,  MAROUBRA 

 

 

DATE:

17 September, 2003

FILE NO:

 D/02/00827

 

 

REPORT BY:            STUART HARDING, WILLANA ASSOCIATES   

                                                                                                                 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Council at its meeting of the 13 May 2003 resolved to refuse a development application for the construction of a six-storey multi-unit housing development containing 29 dwellings and basement car parking.  The parking was provided over two levels and contained spaces for 42 vehicles.  The application also included the land subdivision of 102 Boyce Road and the strata subdivision of the proposed multi-unit housing development.

 

The Council’s decision is now the subject of proceedings in the Land and Environment Court.  I have been retained by Council as it’s expert witness. As part of the Court process, the experts assigned by the parties are required to meet and discuss the issues before the Court.  This process is mandatory and attempts to resolve issues and culminates with a joint report being prepared for presentation to the Court.  The required meetings have taken place.  This has resulted in the applicant proposing significant changes to the scheme. I am satisfied that the amended plans adequately address the reasons for Council’s refusal. My joint report which will be prepared in conjunction with the applicant’s expert witness will state that I am satisfied that all issues are resolved. 

 

This report details the amended plans put forward by the applicant.  As the matter is listed for hearing on 7 and 8 October 2003, it is necessary for Council to consider these changes and decide whether to continue to defend the appeal or agree to the proposed changes through the issue of consent orders. It should be noted that, at this stage in accordance with my advice, there are no points to defend.

 

2.         proposed CHANGES:

 

The applicant has proposed amendments to introduce greater articulation into the side elevations of the proposed building and reduce the bulk and scale of the development.  The amendments have resulted in a reduction of the proposed gross floor area by 135.5m².  The previous scheme had a floor space ratio of 2.76:1 (or a gross floor area of 2,717.7m²) and this has been reduced to 2.63:1 (2,582.2m²).  The proposed dwelling mix has also been amended.  The number of two-bedroom dwellings has been reduced from 24 to 22 and the number of three-bedroom dwellings has been increased from 5 to 7.   Principal changes to the building form include:

 

·        The introduction of staggered setbacks to the eastern and western walls to introduce articulation in the building form.  On the corners of the building the upper levels have been stepped away from the street to increase setbacks from the boundary and provide greater articulation in the façade.  The proposed building now has a wall length along the eastern boundary of 17.5 metres at the base and only 6.9 metres on Level 4.  Level 5 is setback from the boundary by 1.8 metres;

 

·        The “pushing in” of the building on the eastern and western sides of the upper two levels;

 

·        The setback of the external wall on the western elevation has been increased and now achieves setbacks of up to 5.5 metres.  The minimum setback of 1.5 metres is maintained;

 

·        A reduction in the width of the building by approximately 300mm to allow for the provision of a vertical garden and trellis system on both the eastern and western elevations.  This system requires a wire system that projects from the external wall, hence the need for a minor setback from the boundary;

 

·        A number of fin walls were previously proposed to be located on the northern and southern elevations of the building.  A number of these fins walls have been deleted and others reduced in size, and

 

·        The report to Council on the original application recommended a deferred commencement condition requiring the roof structure and upper level to be set back from the rear elevation to control overshadowing to adjoining properties.  The applicant has undertaken this change and included the revised layout in the current scheme.

 

The proposed height of the development still marginally exceeds Council’s requirement of 18 metres.  The parts of the structure that exceed the height are limited to the roof in the middle of the building and a small section of roof along the northern edge.  The roof structure and habitable area of the dwellings along the southern edge of the building are only 17.25 metres in height and comply with Council's requirement of 18 metres, despite containing an extra floor.

 

3.         ISSUES:

 

The reasons for Council’s previous refusal of the application on 13 May 2003 were as follows:

 

1.         The proposed development exceeds the maximum FSR of 2:1 for residential uses required under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site,

 

2.         The proposed development is excessive in height and exceeds the maximum height of 18m required in draft Amendment No. 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the maximum 5 storey height limit required under the draft Development Control Plan – Maroubra Town Centre,

3.         The proposed development does not comply with the floor to ceiling heights required in the draft Development Control Plan – Maroubra Town Centre,

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply with the building zones specified in the draft Development Control Plan – Maroubra Town Centre and therefore contains inadequate deep soil zones that act as a buffer between development,

 

5.         The proposed development will cause an unreasonable level of overshadowing between 9.00am and 3.00pm to the rear yards of the southern adjacent properties along Boyce Road, and any future development within those sites, causing a significant loss in amenity,

 

6.         The proposed development does not comply with the side setbacks required in the draft Development Control Plan – Maroubra Town Centre

 

7.         The proposed development does not comply with the 45 degree height plane control required under Development Control Plan No. 15 – Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre,

 

8.         The proposed development will result in the loss of views to the northwest to residents living in the lower levels of the residential apartments to the southeast,

 

9.         The proposed is not in the public interest having regard to the submissions received.

 

3.1       Floor Space

 

The amendments have resulted in a minor reduction in the proposed floor space.  While the amended floor space ratio of 2.63:1 exceeds the Randwick LEP 1998’s maximum floor space standard of 2:1 for residential development, it complies with the overall maximum floor space standard of 3:1.  Interpretation of the merits of the proposed floor space is required to take into account the provisions of Draft Randwick LEP 1998 (Amendment No. 33) and the Draft Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP.

 

In the previous report to Council’s meeting of 13 May 2003, the proposed all-residential use of the building was deemed to be worthy of consideration given the subject site’s location at the periphery of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.  In light of the building envelope controls and objectives for the Town Centre articulated by Draft Amendment No. 33 and the Draft MJTCDCP, the more crucial issue was the capacity of the development to accommodate a future change of use to commercial on the lower floors should future demand arise.  Council’s principal planning tool in this regard is the floor-to-ceiling height controls of Amendment No. 33 and the Draft MJTCDCP.  To this extent, the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights for the ground and first floors of the building are considered to be adequate to accommodate future conversion to home-based office or commercial uses. 

 

It is not considered that there are adequate grounds to refuse the revised proposal on the basis of the proposed floor space.

 

3.2       Building Height

 

The proposed development exceeds the maximum standard of five floors prescribed by Draft Amendment No. 33.  The building contains a smaller floor plan on the sixth level, which has setbacks from the lower levels to ensure that there are no substantial visual or amenity impacts from the additional floor.  Despite being one floor over that envisaged by the draft control, the height is only exceeded by 1.6 metres at the apex of the roof.  This point is where the roof has been raised to allow for a skylight type feature and an elevated ceiling.  The cross section of the building shows that the encroachment is close to the midpoint in the building, the point of least impact to adjoining development.  The height, however, complies with the current controls of LEP 1998.

 

It is not considered that there are adequate grounds to refuse the revised proposal on the basis of the proposed building height.

 

3.3       Floor-to-Ceiling Heights

 

While the proposal does not strictly comply with the numeric floor-to-ceiling height controls of Draft Amendment No. 33 and the Draft MJTCDCP, the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights for the ground and first floor levels are adequate to accommodate future conversion to ancillary home-based office or commercial uses.  Given the subject site’s location on the periphery of the Town Centre, the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights are considered to be consistent with the ancillary form of commercial uses that may reasonably be expected to be demanded on the subject site in the long-term. 

 

It is not considered that there are adequate grounds to refuse the revised proposal on the basis of the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights.

 

3.4       Building Zones

 

The proposed deep soil areas are consistent with the scale of development and on-site parking requirements that may reasonably be expected for development of the scale depicted in the Draft MJTCDP.  Despite the strict non-compliance with the Draft MJTCDCP’s building zone diagram, it is considered that the proposal incorporates sufficient opportunities for substantial planting and landscaping to screen development and protect the amenity of future residents of the subject site and adjoining properties. 

 

It is not considered that there are adequate grounds to refuse the proposal on the basis of the proposed building zones.

 

3.5       Overshadowing

 

The overshadowing is slightly reduced as a result of lowering the height of the building at both the south-eastern and south-western corners.  The relocation of the upper level to the northern side of the building has also reduced potential overshadowing to the building to the south.  These changes will not result in major improvements to the overshadowing but this would be difficult to achieve without a major redesign.  As the building footprint in the Draft MJTCDCP is largely complied with, particularly at the upper levels, this aspect of the scheme would not appear to warrant refusal of the application.

 

3.6       Setbacks

 

The original application was based on the building envelope controls of the Draft MJTCDCP, which at the time of the previous assessment only required a 1-metre setback from the western boundary and 3 metres from the eastern boundary.  The proposed building has a minimum setback along the western boundary of 1.5 metres, which met the requirements in the Draft MJTCDCP at the time.  The eastern setback is only 0.15 metres and does not meet the setback requirement in the Draft MJTCDCP of 3 metres.  The Draft MJTCDCP does not clearly articulate the purpose or role of the required 3 metre setback to the eastern boundary, particularly in the context of this boundary’s interface with the adjoining high density development. 

 

The increased setbacks on the eastern and western facades have been achieved by pushing the external walls back at the corners of the building.  The increased setbacks start on Level 3 and increase on each corner as the building gets higher.  The result is that the previous south-eastern and south-western corners of the building have been reduced in height.  This helps to reduce overshadowing to the properties to the rear and provides much greater articulation the buildings façade.

 

The building, particularly at the more visible upper levels, is mostly compliant with the building envelope controls in the Draft MJTCDCP.  The variation to the height limit and the encroachment by the lower parts of the building on the side setbacks do not significantly add to the visual bulk and scale of the building.

 

The amended scheme achieves much greater compliance with both DCP No. 15 and the Draft MJTCDCP.  The western boundary complies with the exhibited Draft MJTCDCP.  The new-staggered setback results in a greater volume of building being setback over 4 metres from the boundary. 

 

The revised proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the setback requirements of both DCP No 15 and the Draft MJTCDCP.

 

3.7       Height Plane

 

The current Maroubra DCP No. 15 contains setback controls for the site that require a 45-degree building envelope.  This allows a zero setback for the first 8 metres of the building and then a building envelope control is achieved by projecting a line 45 degrees from the top of the 8 metre limit at the boundary.  The proposed staggered setbacks introduced to the upper levels and side elevations of the development have achieved a much greater compliance with the setback requirements of both DCP No. 15 and the Draft MJTCDCP.  The revised proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the setback requirements of both DCP No 15 and the Draft MJTCDCP.

 

3.8       Views

 

The improved appearance of the proposed building will be evident from the surrounding residential properties.  The reduced building height on the corners will improve the views from the adjoining residential development.  Given the proposal’s general consistency with the building envelope controls of the Draft MJTCDCP, it is not considered that there are adequate grounds to refuse the proposal on the basis of its impacts on views.

 

3.9       Public Interest

 

The amenity impacts that were previously of concern included view loss, overshadowing and potential privacy loss.  The increased setbacks have helped ensure that the impacts are maintained at a reasonable level.

 

The increased setbacks have resulted in the buildings bulk and scale being reduced.  The most significant changes are the appearance of the building from the public domain, especially from east and west of the site.  The scheme now provides greater than required setbacks at the north-western and north-eastern corners of the building.  This has improved the buildings appearance by reducing the apparent bulk.  The visual presence of the building is now considered reasonable.

 

The orientation of the new building will not result in significant impacts on the privacy of adjoining developments.  The existing residential building to the east of the site only has a small overlap where the buildings are separated by 4 metres.  This, combined with the absence of windows from the eastern façade, will ensure that privacy is maintained at an acceptable level.  In addition, the rooms located closest to the adjoining development are bedrooms.  These rooms are the least likely to cause privacy impacts given the nature of the use compared with the living areas of a dwelling.  In addition, the windows are not orientated towards each other and would not result in unreasonable loss of privacy.

 

The changes are a marked improvement to the bulk and scale and consequently the visual appearance of the building.  The buildings bulk and scale are now considered satisfactory.  The changes made to the scheme are such there are no longer unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents.  The scheme does not warrant refusal on the basis of amenity issues.

 

4.         CONCLUSION:

 

The applicant has made a number of changes to the bulk and scale of the development by increasing setbacks to the eastern and western facades.  The result is a scheme that now provides a reasonable level of amenity to the surrounding residents and achieves the required performance in terms of the buildings appearance from the public domain.

 

The issues that were before the Court have satisfactorily been overcome, and accordingly, it is considered that the refusal of the current plans would be difficult to defend.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council agree  in principle to enter into consent orders in respect of the proceedings before the Land and Environment Court subject to those orders being satisfactory to the Court.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report considered on 13 May 2003.

2.  A4 Configuration Plans  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

STUART HARDING

 

CONSULTANt PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

31 January, 2003

FILE NO:

02/00827/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwellings on No.95 and 97 Mason Street and construction of a 6 storey multi unit housing development containing 29 dwellings and basement car parking over 2 levels for 42 vehicles including land subdivision of property No. 106 Boyce Road and strata subdivision of the building.

PROPERTY:

 95-97 Mason Street and 106 Boyce Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 MGB Australia Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing dwellings on No. 95 and 97 Mason Street and construction of a 6 storey multi unit housing development containing 29 dwellings and basement car parking over 2 levels for 42 vehicles including land subdivision of property No. 106 Boyce Road and strata subdivision of the building. The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued at $3.5 million.

 

The proposed development complies with the 3:1 maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the site (under Randwick LEP 1998), but departs from the maximum FSR of 2:1 for the residential component of a development.  The proposal is also seeking a variation to the 5 storey height limit permissible under Draft Maroubra Town Centre DCP.

 

The proposed development was notified extensively to surrounding properties and issues raised in the objections included excessive height, FSR, overdevelopment of the site, overshadowing, loss of views and privacy, inappropriate garbage removal, inadequate parking, increased crime and traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, loss of property value and increased noise and air pollution.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Draft Amendment No 33 to Randwick LEP 1998, Draft DCP for Maroubra Town Centre, Randwick LEP 1998, DCP – Parking 1998 and DCP 15 Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre, and subject to amendments reducing the upper level to minimise overshadowing, is a reasonable proposal for the site.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing two storey dwellings on the properties No.95 and 97 Mason Street and to subdivide off the rear half of the property No.102 Boyce Road to create a development site for the construction of a 6 storey multi unit housing development. The original proposal was for a 6 storey development containing 29 dwellings (divided into 27 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments) with basement car parking for 36 vehicles over two levels. An amended proposal was submitted to reduce the visual bulk of the building from the street level so that the building has the appearance of a five storey building. The proposed amended development contains 5 x 1 bedroom and 24 x 2 bedroom apartments with a 42 space carpark. The proposed amalgamated site area is 983 sq m with 102 Boyce Road being reduced in size to 238.15m2 after subdivision.

 

Vehicular access to the basement carparking levels is proposed adjacent to the eastern side boundary of the site. Pedestrian access is proposed from the centre of the sites frontage to Mason Street into a proposed central lift/lobby area. An equitable access ramp is proposed to the immediate west of the central pedestrian entrance off Mason Street.

 

            The proposed building is to be constructed to the eastern side boundary, and setback 1.5m from the western side boundary of the site. Private landscaped courtyards for ground floor units are to be provided at the rear of the building. A common landscaped open space area with a pergola covered BBQ area is also proposed to the rear of the building, accessed from the central lift lobby area. 

 

Substantial balcony areas are proposed to all residential levels on the street elevation of the building and at the sides of the upper level. On the rear elevation, smaller balconies alternating with planter boxes are proposed over Levels 1 to 4, with terraces provided on the upper level.

 

The main living areas of the dwellings are orientated to the front northern elevation of the building, with bedrooms orientated to the rear.  The upper level is set in from the side boundaries and open space areas to the two units on those sides are of a considerable size in comparison to other units.   

               

Figure 1: Perspective of proposed development from Mason Street.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Mason Street within the Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre. The site comprises three lots - No.95 and 97 Mason Street, and No.102 Boyce Road - which extend through to the Mason Street frontage. The site will have a frontage to Mason Street of 33.3m and a depth of 31.25m, and will be of a regular shape following the required dedication of a 4.57m strip of land for road widening purposes along the Mason Street frontage of the property No.102 Boyce Road and the proposed subdivision of that property into two equal halves.

 

The proposed development site has an area of 982.64sq.m  (i.e. inclusive of the required road widening dedication).

 

The site has a fairly gentle even slope rising by 2m from the Mason Street frontage up to the rear boundary with Boyce Road properties.

 

Existing on the site are two freestanding, two-storey brick dwelling houses at No.95 and 97 Mason Street and a single storey brick dwelling house at No.102 Boyce Road.

 

Adjoining the site to the east is an eight storey mixed use development comprising ground floor commercial premises addressing the Boyce Road frontage and seven levels of residential units above. Adjoining to the west is a two storey brick dwelling house at No.91 Mason Street. Further west and to the north on the opposite side of Mason Street are freestanding dwelling houses. Adjoining to the south are the rear yards of 2, two storey brick dwelling houses at No.104 and 106 Boyce Road.

Figure 2: 95 and 97 Mason Street, Maroubra showing 8 storey residential building to the east. The rear of 102 Boyce Street can be seen on the right.

 

Figure 3: Rear of 102 Boyce Road with single storey dwelling to the west and part of 97 Mason Street to the west.

 

Figure 4: View of Mason Street looking east with rear of 102 Boyce Road on the left.

 

Figure 5: View of properties to the rear of the site along Boyce Street.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

a.         HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

There is no development application history relating to the site. Each of the properties Nos. 95 and 97 Mason Street and 102 Boyce Road are occupied by freestanding brick dwelling houses.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was advertised and notified to surrounding property owners on 17 September 2002. In response to this notification, the following submissions were received:-

 

            Anna  Markovina

            104 Mason Street

            Maroubra 2035

           

            Concerns

-   Does not comply with 5 storey height limit,

-   Insufficient parking provided,

-   Inappropriate proposal for garbage removal,

-   Overdevelopment of the site in terms of height and bulk,

-   Impact to residents in the form of noise, dust and disruptions.

-   The entry should be off Boyce Road as Mason Street has been recently kerbed and guttered.

 

Amy & Sai Kwong Lo

96 Mason Street

Maroubra Junction

NSW 2035

 

Concerns

-     Non-compliance with 5 storey height limit,

-     Non-compliance with FSR,

-     Breaches building height plane,

-     Inadequate car parking and Mason Street does not have the capacity for off street car parking or for delivery trucks servicing the units,

-     Mason Street too narrow to accommodate garbage trucks,

-     Creates a dangerous environment for elderly residents through busy traffic, cluttered streets with no space for pedestrians, noise/air pollution from construction,

-     Reduced amenity on low scale dwellings created by high rise development.

 

Jane Peter

26/108-110  Boyce Road

Maroubra 2135    

 

            Concerns

-     Views to Eastgardens and City will be lost,

-     Will diminish surrounding property values,

-     Increase in crime due to increased population density,

-     Increased density will increase impact on already struggling public transport,

-     Overall the proposal increases population and therefore crime, loss of privacy, full buses, higher traffic on Anzac Parade etc.

 

            Dr and Mrs B.C.Lee

            78 Mason Street

            Maroubra NSW 2035

 

            Concerns

-     Garbage disposal area inappropriate,

-     Entrance and exit should not be located on Mason Street as it is too narrow,

-     The proposal is a serious breach of Council guidelines and it is Council’s duty to enforce its guidelines or to have very good reasons which it should advise residents of in advance if it chooses to ignore those guidelines. Flagrant disregard of Council rules by any developer is vexatious and wasteful of Council (and taxpayers’) resources and should be penalised to discourage such contemptuous behaviour by developers.