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

 

24th October, 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, 28TH OCTOBER, 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, 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5            Acting Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                      

ACTING MAYOR'S MINUTE 62/2003  -WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE FAMILY FUN DAY.

2

 

5.2                      

ACTING MAYOR'S MINUTE 63/2003 - WAIVING OF FEES - 2003 SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN ART SHOW.

4

 

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2003 - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS.

5

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2003 - 2003/04 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2003.

7

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 27/2003 - FINANCIAL REPORTS - 2002/2003.

10

 

 

7          Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 60/2003 - LITTER PATROL.

14

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 61/2003 - TUNSTALL AVENUE, KENSINGTON - INTRODUCTION OF SPEED CONTROL MEASURES .

20

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 62/2003 - GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING SITE – LEASE.

27

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 63/2003 - ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CLAREMONT COLLEGE.

29

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 64/2003 - APPLICATION OF WORK ZONE FEES AND CHARGES ON BUILDING WORKS REQUIRING ROAD CLOSURES.

33

 

7.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 65/2003 - EUCALYPTUS SALIGNA GROWING ON NATURE STRIP OUTSIDE 10 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

36

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 28/2003 - SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - RESTRICTION OF ACCESS  TO INFORMATION - 91 ST MARKS ROAD, RANDWICK.

44

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 29/2003 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SSROC TENDER FOR HARDWARE.

47

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 30/2003 - RISK BUDGET.

50

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 83/2003 - 11-15 ALEXANDER STREET, COOGEE.

52

 

 

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 84/2003 - 330 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

113

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 85/2003 - LA PEROUSE KOORI PROJECT.

143

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 86/2003 - MOVERLY CHILDREN'S CENTRE FEE INCREASE.

145

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                       

By Councillor Matthews – Poker Machine Tax.

148

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Safety on Buses. 

148

11.3

By Councillor Schick – Private Accredited Certifiers.

148

11.4

By Councillor Whitehead –Liquor Accord. 

148

11.5

By Councillor Matson – Claims of Bussing of Clovelly Hotel Patrons to the Beach Palace.

148

11.6

By Councillor Matson – Verification of Claims on Asbestos Soil Sampling at Bundock Street.

149

11.7

By Councillor Matson – Review of Aggressive – Rooted Street Tree Strategy. 

149

11.8

By Councillor Matson – Council Supported Reforms to Pokie Machines. 

149

11.9

By Councillor Matson – Mr Alex Burak’s Complaints re: the Rice Noodle and other Restaurants.

150

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2003 - TENDER 04/03 - MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF LATHAM PARK and/or SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRES.

151

13.2

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 28/2003 – POSITION OF DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES. (Report to be circulated to Councillors prior to the Meeting.)

 

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

ACTING MAYOR'S MINUTE 62/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE FAMILY FUN DAY

 

DATE:

21 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1148

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a request for assistance from the Coogee Chamber of Commerce, organisers of the annual Coogee Family Fun Day to be held this year at Goldstein Reserve, Coogee on Saturday De cember 6th, 2003. They have requested assistance from Council with the following, given that this is a fundraising event:

 

Installation and dismantling of banner (November/December)    $   528.00

Banner over public roadway fee                                                            $   440.00

Installation and dismantling of portable stage (6th December)     $1,800.00

Administration Fee                                                                                $   550.00

Supply and remove extra bins and remove rubbish                                 $1,500.00

(based on 10, 240 litre bins emptied 3 times a day)                              

Connection to power                                                                            $    74.80

Connection to water supply                                                                   $    49.50

Additional Toilet Cleaning                                                                     $  330.00

Street Stalls Registration (six)                                                    $  480.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $5,752.30

 

ISSUES:

 

As Council’s contribution to this event has been significant over the years, it is appropriate that we be seen as a co-operative partner, rather than just a general supplier. This has been discussed at length with the Chamber of Commerce who have subsequently agreed to acknowledge Council as a major sponsor to the value of the support we supply.

 

In return for the contribution of a stage, cleaning assistance, additional rubbish bins and the erection of a banner, Council will receive the following promotion in return:

 

1.         Council Logo being prominently displayed on the Family Fun Day Banner suspended across Coogee Bay Road.

2.         Council Logo being prominently displayed on all promotional materials such as flyers, newspaper advertisements etc.

3.         Council will be mentioned as sponsor in any radio advertisements.

4.         Council’s sponsorship acknowledged in all local press and publicity.

5.         Elected representatives invited to participate in formal proceedings.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Coogee Family Fun Day is a significant local event and one that is well supported and attended by the community.  Funds raised through this event are donated to the Sydney Children’s Hospital.

 

It is considered that Council should continue to support this event through its “in-kind” sponsorship via the waiving of fees, otherwise payable to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         Council vote $5,752.30 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be charged to Councillors’ Request Works Allocation.

 

2.         The organisers of the Coogee Family Fun Day acknowledge Council’s contribution to the event and co-ordinate appropriate publicity with Council’s Communications Manager.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICHAEL DALEY

 

ACTING MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING MAYOR'S MINUTE 63/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - 2003 SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN ART SHOW

 

 

DATE:

21 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1720

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING MAYOR       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application was recently lodged for the 2003 South Maroubra Village Green Art Show which is being held from the 12th November, 2003 to 16th November, 2003.  The exhibition showcases approximately 180 paintings from local artists and the exhibition will be located at the southern section of South Maroubra Village Green adjacent to the car park of the South Maroubra Shopping Village under a marquee.  This was a non-profit community exhibition.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Art Show is organised by Mr Richard Walsh of Walsh’s Village Pharmacy and is a non-profit community event supporting local talent within Randwick City.  Mr Walsh is requesting that due to the nature of the event that the Administration Fee of $82.50 be waived. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $82.50 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be charged to Councillors’ Request Works Allocation and that the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICHAEL DALEY

 

ACTING MAYOR

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS

 

 

DATE:

30 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0077

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report draws to the attention of the Council the provisions of the Local Government Act relating to requirements for General Managers with respect to the lodgement and tabling of Disclosure of Interest Returns.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest returns in accordance with Section 449 and Schedule 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation. Section 450(A) of the Act requires General Managers to keep a Register of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30th September, 2003).

 

In tabling the Register of Disclosure of Interests, I report that all Councillors and staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed time.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is now necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Register to be tabled at this Council Meeting and the Council has discharged its duty in relation to the past disclosure year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the contents of the General Manager’s Report ????/2003 dated 30th September, 2003 be received and noted; and

 

(b)        it be noted that the Disclosure of Interests Register has been tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 28th October, 2003.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003/04 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2003

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2627

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2003/2004 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2003/2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

 

Park 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2003/2004 year, based on current trends.  The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

b).        SEPTEMBER 2003 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2003/2004 as at 30 September 2003:

 

 

 

 

Summary of September 2003 Quarter Budget Variations

By Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

Increase

(Increase )

 

 

( Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

$

$

$

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of Natural & Built Assets

266,089

(189,023)

77,066

 

 

 

 

Waste Services

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

City Services

10,267

(6,000)

4,267

 

 

 

 

City Planning & Development

119,916

(167,200)

(47,284)

 

 

 

 

Corporate Governance

41,374

42,912

84,286

 

 

 

 

Executive Strategy

101,541

0

101,541

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

539,187

(319,311)

219,876

Original Budget (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

(682)

Net (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

219,194

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations, and reserve funds balances as at 31 September 2003 are tabled.

 

It is intended to review the projected deficit at the December quarterly return, to ensure Council maintains its balanced budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer, advises that  the projected financial position is satisfactory subject to action being taken to maintain a balanced budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the report in relation to the September 2003 budget review be received and noted.

 

2.         That the budget variations referred in paragraph (b) in this report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 27/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

FINANCIAL REPORTS - 2002/2003

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0043 XR 98/S/3562

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To report on Council’s statutory financial reports and budget result for the year 2002/2003.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act, 1993 requires the preparation of financial reports, which must be completed within a period of four months after the end of the financial year.  These reports must include statements made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor and at least one other councillor as well as the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

A copy of the financial reports is tabled.

 

These financial reports must then be referred to the Council’s Auditors, and once audited these financial reports must be included in the Council’s Annual Report.

 

As well, as soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the Auditors’ report, public notice must be given of a meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports together with the Auditors’ report.

 

It is proposed that the audited financial reports be presented at the Council meeting to be held on 25 November 2003 and arrangements will be made to publicise the meeting in the local press.

 

A separate statement is attached providing detailed information on the financial result compared to the Council’s 2002/2003 budget.

 

A further report as to the overall financial position will be provided on completion of the audit.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2003 be adopted.

 

2.         That in relation to the statements required in accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993: -

 

(a)        Council resolve that in its opinion the general purpose financial

report and the special purpose financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2003 and special schedules are properly drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations there under.

 

(b)        That the statements be approved and signed by the Mayor, another

Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

3.         That copies of the financial reports be referred to Council’s Auditors for audit.

 

4.         That the audited financial statements be presented at a meeting of council to be held on 25 November 2003 in accordance with Section 418 of the local Government Act, 1993.

 

5.         That the Budget Result Statement (Attachment “1” for the year ended 30 June 2002) be noted.

 

6.         That the items to be carried over from the 2002/2003 to the 2003/2004 budget, referred to Attachment “1”, be approved and voted for expenditure in 2002/2003 in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999.

 

7.         That the transfer to the IT Replacement Reserves identified in Attachment “1” be endorsed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Financial results for the 12 months ending 30 June 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT NO 1                          

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 JUNE 2003

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

 98/S/3562

 

 

REPORT BY:            MANAGER – FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To review of Council’s financial results against budget for the 12 months ending 30 June 2003 and seek approval for those projects not completed in that financial year to be carried over to the current financial year.

 

ISSUES:

 

The accounts for the twelve months ending 30 June 2003 have now been finalized, but are  yet to be audited.

 

Clause 15(3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999 states that all expenditure approvals and votes lapse at the end of a council’s financial year, except for:

 

·    works carried out or started, or contracted to be carried out, for the council; or

·    any services provided, or contracted to be provided, for the council; or

·    goods or materials provided, or contracted to be provided, for the council; or

·    facilities provided or started, or contracted to be provided, for the council, before the end of the year concerned or to the payment of remuneration to members of the council’s staff.

 

Consistent with this clause, Program Managers have identified works approved for expenditure in 2002/03 which have commenced or for which Council is contracted/committed or for which external funding such as grants, contributions, etc have been provided

 

 A schedule of those projects recommended for revoting in the financial year 2003/2004 is tabled.


30 JUNE 2003 BUDGET RESULTS SUMMARY:

 

A principal activity summary of the 2002/03 budget results (including projects recommended for revoting in 2003/2004) follows: -

 

 Principal Activity

 

 Current Budget Adopted 27 May 2003

 Actual
 

 Surplus

(Deficit)

Compare to

 Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Management of Natural & Built Assets

 

    18,343,918

   18,089,188

       254,730

 

 

 

                  

 

 Waste Services

 

      1,934,833

     1,871,018

         63,815

 

 

 

                     

 

 City Services

 

      5,206,980

     4,654,286

       552,694

 

 

 

                     

 

 City Planning & Development

 

      3,403,756

     2,556,551

       847,205

 

 

 

                     

 

 Corporate Governance

 

  (30,245,395)

  (30,489,340)

       243,945

 

 

 

                      

 

 Executive Strategy

 

      1,355,908

     1,429,830

       (73,922)

 

 

 

 

 

 Total

 

                    -  

   (1,888,467)

    1,888,467

 Transfer to IT Reserves

 

 

     1,888,467

  (1,888,467)

 Total

 

 

                   -  

                 -  

 

 

 

 

 

 “Budget” and “Actual” figures exclude depreciation and exclude a “oneoff” adjustment required under an accounting standard adjustment in relation to employees ELE oncosts.

 

COMMENT

 

The overall result is considered most satisfactory and it is recommended that the surplus be held in reserves as part cost of the Council On-Line Project ($1,888,467).

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report  60/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

LITTER PATROL

 

 

DATE:

24 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3806

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 February 2003, Council resolved that a report be prepared for Council on the effectiveness of the Litter Patrol including options of improving removal of dumped materials.

 

ISSUES:

 

Background

 

The dumping of rubbish is endemic throughout the Sydney metropolitan area and differs according to the demographics and vulnerability of remote locations in local government areas. In the Randwick area, dumped rubbish is predominantly of household origin. The nature of dumped rubbish in Randwick is attributable to factors of  “lifestyle wastes”, high transit population in certain areas, attitudes to Council responsibilities, etc.

 

In 2001, Council undertook a special project on illegal dumping control through law enforcement, community education and removal of dumped material. Two Litter Patrol Officers (LPOs) were employed to take legal action against the offender, using the provisions of the Protection Of Environmental Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act), and to educate the community. LPOs received training on how to effectively utilise the POEO Act for illegal dumping control.

The POEO Act is the key piece of legislation governing the protection of the environment. The POEO Act regulates illegal dumping by making the Council the Appropriate Regulatory Authority concurrently with the EPA and vesting it with the power to take enforcement action by issuing the following notices, namely, penalty notices, clean-up notices, prevention notices and compliance cost notices.

 

Penalty notices are issued in respect of tier 3 offences, which includes littering. A penalty notice allows the person who does not wish for the offence to be dealt with by court to pay the prescribed fee and have the offence compounded. Otherwise, the person can dispute the notice in court.

 

Clean-up notices are for quick responses to pollution incidents. These notices can be issued when a ‘pollution incident’ has occurred or is occurring or is likely to occur. A pollution incident is defined in the Dictionary to the POEO Act as ‘an incident or set of circumstances during or as a consequence of which there is, has been or is likely to be a leak, spill or other escape of a substance, as a result of which pollution has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur’. It includes an incident or set of circumstances in which waste has been placed or disposed of on premises unlawfully, but it does not include an incident or set of circumstances involving only the emission of any noise or odour. The Council may recover the administrative costs of issuing a clean-up notice. The one advantage of a clean-up notice over other notices is that there is no right of merit appeal.

 

Prevention notices are intended to address more systemic pollution and waste management problems. Council can issue a prevention notice when an activity is being carried on in an ‘environmentally unsatisfactory manner’. Section 95 of the POEO Act specifies that “an activity is carried on in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner if:

(a)        it is carried on in contravention of, or in a manner that is likely to lead to a contravention of, this Act, the regulations or a condition attached to an environment protection licence, or

(b)        it causes, or is likely to cause, a pollution incident, or

(c)        it is not carried on by such practicable means as may be necessary to prevent, control or minimise pollution, the emission of any noise or the generation of waste, or

(d)        it is not carried on in accordance with good environmental practice.”

 

Similar to clean-up notices, one can recover the administrative costs of preparing and issuing a prevention notice. A person issued with a prevention notice can appeal against the issue of the notice in a court of law.

 

Voluntary clean-up action by the Council is also possible where Council suspects that a pollution incident has occurred or is occurring and feels the need to take immediate action to arrest the situation, or, where the suspected polluter has not complied with a clean-up or prevention notice. The major problem with compliance cost notices however is that no administrative fee is chargeable for preparing and issuing them.

 

Constraints in taking legal actions against offenders

 

For legal action to be effective, it is important for strong evidence to be gathered to satisfy the criminal standard of proof i.e proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Very often, it is difficult to gather convincing evidence as to who has dumped the materials. If the dumped materials are furniture, like mattresses, table, chair, lounge, etc., it is almost impossible to find evidence identifying the dumper. In the past, the LPOs used to find envelopes in the dumped materials containing addresses, which can be used to identify a dumper and enable legal action to be taken. Nowadays, the dumpers are very much aware that names and addresses can be used as evidences and they make sure no evidences are left with materials before they are dumped. So it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any evidence in dumped materials identifying the dumper.

 

Legal actions are lengthy process and take a substantial time to investigate and involve issuing warnings, issuing notices and follow up. It may take weeks for this process to be completed before the illegally dumped material or rubbish can be removed. Unfortunately, not removing the dumped material immediately irks many residents who prefer the dumped material to be removed immediately. This seems to be a symptom of the ‘not in my backyard syndrome’. People wish for the Council to investigate and punish offenders but are not willing to give the Council the time to follow the procedure to achieve this where it involves the rubbish sitting in their neighbourhood for any length of time.

 

Also, it is difficult to satisfy the standard of proof necessary for issuing penalty notices for litter. A penalty notice cannot be issued on a mere suspicion.  The Infringement Processing Bureau has advised the LPOs that the issuance of a penalty notice for an illegal dump requires an admission by an offender. If not, it requires the offender to be caught red handed or at the very least a statement from an eyewitness. Getting statements from eyewitnesses has proven extremely difficult in practice.

 

Finally, the POEO Act does not provide the necessary ammunition or teeth to use compliance cost notices effectively where the Council proceeds to unilaterally clean up the illegal dump. It has been the unfortunate experience of the LPOs that cost compliance notices issued under section 104 of the POEO Act, to recover the costs of clean-up action undertaken by Council under section 92(2) of the POEO Act (to remove litter from public land), are being ignored by the addressee. In these situations, the cost of the clean up is not large enough to warrant going to court to recoup the expenses as a debt. The legal costs of enforcement in such situations outweigh the debt owed. As such, the Council has written to the EPA to the effect that the utility of cost-compliance notices to fight litter would be immeasurably enhanced by amending the POEO Act to include a provision providing for an administrative fee for preparing and issuing a notice and a penalty for non-payment of the same.

The illegal dumping control project commenced in the second half of 2001 with the following procedures in place:

 

·   Litter Patrol Officers patrol the city on a regular basis.

·   Illegal dumping incidents spotted by the Litter Patrol Officers (LPO) or reported by members of the community are recorded in a database.

·   If an incident is reported by a resident, then the complainant is interviewed by the LPOs to obtain information and advised as to the appropriate course of action.  Information is requested in writing as required for any possible legal actions. Not all complainants are happy to provide information in writing and usually complainants demand quick removal of rubbish.

·   In both cases illegally dumped waste is taped and a sticker applied to provide information that an investigation is underway and to request any information concerning an offender.

·   LPOs investigate the illegally dumped waste for evidence.

·   If no evidence is found or no information received then the incident is reported electronically to the depot for removal and the cost of removal is borne by Council. The depot then prepares a run-sheet for removal and executes removal operation.

·   If an offender is identified, they are advised to remove the waste and they get information on Council’s Special Paid Removal Service for waste removal.  A 24-hour time frame is provided for the offender to inform Council as to how the waste will be removed. If waste removal has not been undertaken in that time frame and no reasonable response is received from the suspected offender, a cleanup notice is issued to the offender specifying a time period to clean up.  However, this procedure will result in a greater delay in the clean up being effected, as the POEO Act requires a reasonable period for compliance to be given.

·   If nothing happens i.e. offender does not comply with the clean up notice, the depot is advised by the LPOs electronically to remove the dumped material and a compliance cost notice is issued to the offender.  However, the Council can end up not getting paid by the offender.

 

Following the above mentioned procedures 2,318 illegal dumping incidences were identified and investigated during the period January 2002 to December 2002. From the investigated incidents, 24 Clean-up Notices, 9 Compliance cost Notices, 2 Prevention Notices, 630 warnings and 43 Penalty notices were issued. Special Paid Pick-ups were negotiated for 804 incidents and the rest were referred to the depot for removal due to lack of evidences. Two cases were challenged in court by the suspected dumpers. In both the cases Council had to withdraw the prosecution following legal advice.

 

Evidence that was available in the beginning of the project with dumped materials and was used in identifying ownership of the materials dumped, slowly disappeared with time. Dumpers exhibited adaptive behavioural changes, as they started to carefully remove self-incriminating evidences from materials prior to dumping them. This indicates that dumpers are aware of the consequences of their act but were undeterred by this knowledge.

 

Illegal dumping investigations required for legal actions in compliance with the POEO Act are lengthy and sometimes very stressful. The reason is that the same procedures that are meant to cater for dumping of a mattress also apply to the dumping of many cubic tones of toxic chemicals by industry. As such, the evidentiary requirements are necessarily onerous. This can be viewed as an inherent limitation of the POEO Act. As a consequence, despite the hard work and intensive efforts of the two Litter Patrol Officers, there was limited success in reducing illegal dumping incidents.

 

Further, as discussed earlier, the lengthy and difficult process of investigation and prosecution of illegal dumpers irked many residents who preferred the dumped material to be removed immediately. The residents on one hand supported the idea of the Council investigating and punishing offenders, but on the other hand were not willing to give the Council the time to follow the procedure to achieve this where it involves the rubbish sitting in their neighbourhood for any length of time. In response to community demand for quick removal of dumped material, illegal dumping control procedures were improved in January 2003.

 

The new procedures shifted the focus slightly from enforcement towards quick removal, to meet community demand. Under the improved procedure, a dedicated spotter patrols the city on a daily basis, spots illegal dumps, and enters the information onto a database designed specifically for this purpose. The spotter does a general assessment of the dumped material, and gives an indication as to whether there is prima facie evidence sufficient to warrant further investigation. Subsequently, a desktop analysis is done back in the office to prepare a list of incidents for further investigation. Those not designated for further investigation, are marked in the database for removal.  A run-sheet through the database is then prepared for removal of dumps that are not worth investigation and the depot collects the illegal dump within a 48-hour time frame.

 

Further investigation and prosecution, where necessary, is then undertaken by Council Rangers.

 

Following the modified procedures, a total of 5,905 incidents were spotted during the period January 2003 to August 2003. Only 5 Clean-up Notices, 48 Penalty notices and 496 warnings were issued, and 88 Special Pick-ups were negotiated.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Illegal dumping is a very complex social issue primarily resulting from the irresponsible action of a small section of the community that affects the aesthetics of the city and the environment. 

 

Two LPOs were appointed on a two-year contract basis to deal with the problem by utilizing the enforcement mechanisms available under the POEO Act. Consequently, 2,318 illegal dumping incidents were identified and investigated during the period January 2002 to December 2002.

 

The inherent limitations of the POEO Act regime when applied to illegal dumping, namely, the difficulty in fulfilling stringent evidentiary requirements and delays associated with complying with prescribed enforcement procedures made it difficult to meet community expectations of quick removal of illegal dumps. Therefore an improvement to the Council’s illegal dumping control procedures was undertaken. Under the improved procedure, the spotting and investigation/prosecution role is performed separately by a spotter and ranger, instead of a single LPO.

 

Following the improvement to the procedure, over the last 8 months a total of 5,905 illegal incidents were spotted within the City and dealt with.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.         Note the report including the shortcomings of the POEO Act in dealing with illegal dumping and the improvements to the Council’s illegal dumping control procedures.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

WASTE MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 61/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

TUNSTALL AVENUE, KENSINGTON - INTRODUCTION OF SPEED CONTROL MEASURES 

 

 

DATE:

20 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4405     R/0733/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a number of complaints from local residents concerning the high speed and volume of through traffic in Tunstall Avenue, Kensington.

 

ISSUES:

 

Residents have reported that they have experienced several ‘near miss’ incidents when they attempt to reverse out of their driveways, located on the western side of Tunstall Avenue, between Day Avenue and Addison Street.

 

Tunstall Avenue forms part of the area for the Kensington / West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Study.

 

A report prepared by Christopher Stapleton Consulting Pty Ltd has been in circulation for some time within a Working Group of Police, RTA, STA, Council officers and Ward Councillors.

 

This group considers that at this stage the road closures, suggested by the Consultant for the purpose of alleviating through traffic movements, if implemented would cause significant disruption to the local community.

 

The working group is supportive of reducing the speed environment in residential streets, and considers that surveys to establish the volumes and the pattern of traffic throughout the area should be conducted.

 

In response to recent representations by local residents, an on-site meeting was held to consider specific issues relating to Tunstall Avenue.

 

Local residents raised the problem of through traffic and their high speed that were of concern to them.  Vehicles crossing the double centrelines in Tunstall Avenue at the crest and the 90-degree bend at Addison Street were also observed.

Council’s Traffic Engineers are currently reviewing the results of speed and traffic volume surveys with a view to establishing the warrant for and the type of traffic calming treatments appropriate for the entire study area of Kensington / West Kingsford.

 

It is envisaged that funding will be considered by Council in a future budget to a number of treatments at locations that have proven road safety problems.  However, whilst funding will not be available at best until the next financial year, it is felt necessary to provide some intermediate treatments in Tunstall Avenue, particularly at the crest and the 90-degree bend to reduce the potential for traffic accidents.

 

The proposed treatments include generally the following:

 

·    construction of a concrete median at the 90 degree bend at the Addison Street intersection;

·    provision of double centre lines and separation lines for north and southbound traffic;

·    provision of a car parking lane on the western side, together with shifting the double centre line easterly;

·    installation of rumble bars; and

·    introduction of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the eastern side.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

These minor treatments, as shown on the attached plans, are considered to be effective and viable traffic calming measures to alleviate the potential for accidents in Tunstall Avenue.

 

Rumble bars are not favoured by some of the residents, due to the noise they create, particularly late at night, however they are considered effective as a speed control device.

 

The Traffic Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2003 raised no objection to the implementation of the above measures to achieve safety and speed controls at the subject locations in Tunstall Avenue.

 

Funding for these works has been included in the reallocated funds for projects, which did not receive Roads and Traffic Authority funding in 2003-2004, approved by Council at its Works Committee Meeting held on 14 October 2003.

 

However prior to implementation, it is considered that due to the environmental sensitivity of the residential amenities of the area, adjoining residents of premises Nos: 26 to 46 Tunstall Avenue be notified of the proposals.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   The existing double centreline in Tunstall Avenue between premises No. 44 and No. 26 be relocated as shown on the attached plans;

 

2.   Double centreline with rumble bars be installed for a length of 50 metres between premises Nos. 44 and 38, and a length of 90 metres between Nos. 36 and 26 Tunstall Avenue, and that these lines be shifted east of the carriageway’s true centreline as shown, in order to provide a parking lane on the western side of Tunstall Avenue;

 

3.   An edge line be painted on the western side of Tunstall Avenue between premises No. 44 and No. 26 to define the car parking lane;

 

4.   The existing 80 metre length of double centreline in Tunstall Avenue at its intersection with Addison Street be removed, and an approximately 450mm high concrete median be constructed as shown on the plan;

 

5.   A ‘Crest’ warning sign be installed on both approaches to the crest located in the vicinity of No. 20 – 36 Tunstall Avenue;

 

6.   Prior to implementation of the abovementioned measures, residents of premises numbers 20 to 44 and 1a to 1c Tunstall Avenue be advised of the above proposals; and

 

7.   Authority be delegated to the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services to introduce minor amendments to the above proposed measures, prior to implementation, following consultation with the local residents and Ward Councillors.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans showing proposed speed control measures .

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 





 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 62/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

GREEN WASTE AND CONCRETE RECYCLING SITE - LEASE

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/3862(4)

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 July 2002, Council resolved to agree to the terms of the Heads of Agreement for lease of the recycling site at 15 Bumborah Point Road and to delegate authority to the General Manager and Mayor to execute the Heads of Agreement.   The Heads of Agreement was executed on 2 August 2002.

 

The Local Environment Plan (LEP), current at the time, did not allow operation of a waste recycling facility at this site. To allow the intended activities to proceed, Council at its Ordinary Council meeting on 13 February 2003 endorsed draft LEP Amendment No. 32.This amendment was subsequently approved by the Minister for Planning.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 March 2003, Council agreed to the Option to Lease that Council will pay 50% of the agreed rent being $98,031 for a period of three months from 1 May 2003 to 31 July 2003 and from 1 August 2003 full rent commences for 20 year lease period.

 

It was found unlikely that the processing of the development application would be completed before the end of August 2003 and to allow more time for planning approvals, Council’s General Manager successfully renegotiated the terms of the “Option to lease” to extend for another 3 months at 75% of the rent and thereafter on a month by month basis at full rent in accordance with the Heads of Agreement, until all necessary approvals have been obtained and the lease commenced. Council has paid option to lease fees for the second term of 3 months expiring on 31 October.

 

ISSUES:

 

Development Approval

 

On 12 August 2003 Council approved a development application for the Recycling Facility with some deferred commencement conditions that required a flood study be carried out and the stormwater management design be modified accordingly. The Sydney Ports Corporation has carried out the flood study and the stormwater design parameters have been modified accordingly.

 

The contract documents for the design and construction of the recycling are currently being prepared.

 

Lease Documentation

 

The Heads of Agreement require the Landlord’s solicitor to prepare the Lease Documentation. Cutler Hughes and Harris, Sydney Ports Corporation’s solicitor has drafted a lease agreement and Council’s solicitor, Bowen and Gerathy is currently reviewing the document.

           

CONCLUSION:

 

Development approval for the recycling facility has been obtained and arrangements for construction are underway.

 

In accordance with the Heads of Agreement and the Option to Lease Agreement the Lease Agreement for the site now can be signed subject to final sign off by Council’s solicitors.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council delegate authority to the Mayor and the General Manager to execute the Lease Agreement and affix Councils Seal if required, subject to final sign off by Council’s solicitors being issued.

   

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 63/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CLAREMONT COLLEGE

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0424/02   D/1145/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 September, 2003, resolved that -

 

“Council establish a Committee of 2 resident representatives, 2 school representatives, Ward Councillors and Council’s Traffic Engineer to review the traffic management plan for the school.”

 

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the following action was taken.

 

Ø  Local residents were hand delivered a letter advising them of Council’s resolution. (Map attached to file indicates the locality covered).

Ø  Claremont College was advised by letter of Council’s resolution and requested to forward the names of two school representatives.

Ø  The Mayor, East Ward Councillors and Traffic Engineer were also advised by memo of 9 October, 2003.

 

In response to the letter drop to the local residents, the following response has been received -

 

Mr D M McMahon, 6 Heath Street, nominates two local residents, Ms Joanne Muller, 8 Heath Street and Ms Barbara Dougan, 10 Heath StreetMr McMahon commented that these two residents live in the street most affected.

 

Mr Alan Carle of 12 Dolphin Street, Randwick nominates himself. Mr Carle would like the opportunity to represent residents.

 

Ms Jasinta Toussaint, 3 Dolphin Street, Randwick nominates herself. She and her family and neighbours have difficulty with traffic in the area and would like to have representation on the Committee.

 

Ms Barbara Dougan of 10 Heath Street nominates herself and comments that she “has been involved in the issue of the development since January 2003, lives directly behind 23 Judge Street and one house from the laneway.” Ms Dougan has received verbal support “from other neighbours to apply for this committee position and will be happy to supply their names if requested.”

 

Mr Wilkinson, 3 Gray Street, Randwick nominates himself as having a keen interest in representing the residents surrounding Claremont College to address the traffic management plan for the College.

Mr Wilkinson advises that he has resided at 3 Gray St since 1991, has children attending Claremont College, and “has actively followed the development approval process and has respect for the Council’s decision and has professional experience as an advisor on transport projects had community impacts of transport decision on community through involvement with the Warren Centres 2002 study of Sustainable Transport for Sustainable Cities.”

 

By letter of 29 September, 2003, Mr Alfred Breznik, of 21 Judge Street (prior to the letter drop) “recommend for the Committee two representatives of the immediate neighbourhood which is the most affected by the traffic in these streets, Ms Joanne Muller and Ms Barbara Dougan”

 

Claremont College has nominated as the school’s representatives, Mr Doug Thomas (Deputy Principal) and Mrs McCulloch (parent)

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Compliance with the current traffic management plan for pick up and drop off of Claremont College’ students predominantly generates vehicular movements in Judge Street via Dolphin and Coogee Bay Road, vehicles are not to use Judge Lane or Gray Street.  The development consent for DA 1145/2002 conditioned the applicant to design and construct a shared zone in Judge Lane, fronting the school. 

 

Council is in receipt of expressions of interest for the subject committee from 2 residents in Dolphin Street, 2 residents in Heath Street and 1 resident from Gray Street.  Given that the existing traffic management plan has implications for traffic flows in Dolphin Street and that the operation of the shared zone may impact residents in Heath Street and Gray Street it is considered appropriate that the two resident representatives on the committee be made up of one resident from Dolphin Street and one resident from Heath Street or Gray Street.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         Council consider the resident applications from Dolphin Street and select one applicant for the committee.

 

2.         Council consider the resident applications from Heath Street and Gray Street and select one applicant for the committee.

 

3.         The committee to review Claremont College’s Traffic Management Plan be made up of the following people:

 

§ 2 School representatives being Mr Doug Thomas and Mrs McCulloch.

 

§ Ward Councillors

 

§ Council’s Traffic Engineer Mr Ken Kanagarajan.

 

§ Council nominated resident representative from Dolphin Street.

 

§ Council nominated resident representative from Heath Street and Gray Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Map

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 64/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

APPLICATION OF WORK ZONE FEES AND CHARGES ON BUILDING WORKS REQUIRING ROAD CLOSURES. .

 

DATE:

21 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5002   

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES             

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges stipulate fees to be charged for ‘Work Zones’ on public streets.

 

This report clarifies the scope of the application of Work Zone fees on building activities requiring occupation of public ways, and where Work Zone signs are not installed.

 

ISSUES:

 

Section 608 of the Local Government Act 1993 empowers Councils to charge an approved fee for the purpose of “supplying a service, product or commodity”.

 

Work Zone is defined under Section 181 of Australian Road Rules, which permits standing of vehicles engaged in construction work in or near the zone.

 

Council’s schedule of fees and charges for the financial year 2003/2004 specifies that a sum of $210 per vehicle space per month, plus a sum of $400 per each Work Zone sign, be charged when a Work Zone is provided for a building site.

 

However, there may be instances in which a building site encroaches onto a portion of a public way, but yet do not require signposting as Work Zone.

 

Recent examples of such building sites are:

 

1.         The Pacific Square Development Project which required the complete closure of the eastern footway of Bruce Bennetts Place and the southern footway of Boyce NilRoad to facilitate the stormwater and sewer diversion works around the development site.  The closure of these public ways was implemented by the erection of a fence (‘A’ Class hoarding).  The signposting outside the closed public ways were to be ‘No Stopping’.

 

Initially the builder Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd indicated that the firm was not required to pay Work Zone fees for the part closure of public ways in Bruce Bennetts Place, Boyce Road and the Anzac Parade central island car park area, on the basis that these areas were not to be signposted as ‘Work Zone’.

 

However, when Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer reiterated that portions of public ways were simply needed to be closed to allow construction works, and the areas had effectively to be classified as Work Zones, the builder agreed to pay the sum of $39,720 as Work Zone fees to obtain Council’s approval for the closure of these public ways.

 

2.         Lipman Pty Ltd are the contractors engaged to construct a new eight level office / teaching facility for the University of New South Wales at the site of premises nos. 221-227 Anzac Parade, Kensington.

 

The site extends to Houston Lane at the rear, and it was stated that the building would be extended up to the building line on the eastern side of Houston Lane.  To facilitate the building construction up to the building line, the builder requested occupation of one metre width of public way of Houston Lane, adjoining the site, for a period of 16 months.

 

Prior to the granting of approval by Council for the closure of the part of the public way, the builder erected an ‘A’ class hoarding taking up one metre of the roadway.  Although the kerb space adjacent to the ‘A’ Class hoarding was to be signposted as ‘No Stopping’, Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer considered the part occupation of the public way to be a ‘Work Zone’, and required the builder to pay a sum of $24,720 (not yet paid), as Work Zone fees. This has been agreed to by the contractor.

 

The above two examples clearly demonstrate the justification to charge Work Zone fees, as in these instances ‘a product or commodity’ (road space) has been provided by Council to facilitate building activities.

 

It is apparent that this practice of builders being charged for the occupation of portions of public streets to facilitate their building activities, which could confer a commercial advantage to them, was not strictly followed by Council in past years.

 

Imposition of a fee, which could be substantial, will obviously discourage long periods of occupation of public streets by contractors, causing discomfort and loss of amenity to adjoining landowners and the public. In addition such fees that are imposed appropriately, would add substantially to Council’s revenue.

 

Section 612 of the Local Government Act requires that Council must give public notice for at least 28 days prior to the adoption of the approved fee.  In this regard, Council is advised that prior to the adoption of the current fees and charges for the year 2003/2004 by Council at its meeting held on 24 June 2003, Council has undertaken this public notification process. 

 

What is simply proposed in this report is an explanation and clarification of the extent of the application of Work Zone fees.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is therefore considered that Council should support such imposition of Work Zone fees and charges, where appropriate, to include building activities requiring occupation of public ways.

 

Council imposes fees and charges for several activities on public places including commercial still photography, filming, weddings, side walk cafes / outdoor seating, placement of approved signage, mobile food vendors, etc.  Compared to these activities, occupation of public ways by builders causing discomfort and loss of amenity to adjoining landowners and the public, justifies the imposition of a fee.

 

This approach is consistent with Council’s aims and objectives of not only being an efficient Development Control Authority but also a prudent Manager of Public Assets.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The report dated 21 October 2003 by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services in regard to the application of Work Zone fees and charges on building sites be noted;

 

2.         The imposition of Work Zone fees and charges, where appropriate, to include building activities requiring occupation of public ways as outlined in this report, be endorsed as a policy; and

 

3.         An appropriate policy be developed for inclusion in Council’s Policy Register.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 65/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

EUCALYPTUS SALIGNA GROWING ON NATURE STRIP OUTSIDE 10 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

22 October, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0403/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, Councillor Margery Whitehead, has written to Council requesting that a large, mature Council-owned Sydney Blue gum growing on the nature strip outside her property be removed and replaced with a Callistemon species (Bottlebrush). 

 

In accordance with Councils usual policy, this request is submitted for Councils determination.

 

ISSUES:

 

Councillor Whitehead has chronicled a variety of reasons for wanting the tree removed and these are dealt with below.

 

Possibility of falling branches – Council’s Tree Management Officer has been advised that one largish branch fell during recent high wind/storm activity. Since that event Council’s tree trimming contractors have tidied up the tree and removed a number of branches from within the canopy.

 

These branches consisted of minor deadwood and were removed to allow wind to flow through the canopy more effectively (see attached photographs).

 

The cost of removing debris and leaf litter from gutters – this nuisance could be abated with the relatively inexpensive installation of a proprietary ‘Gutter guard’ type product.

 

Time spent sweeping up and removing debris - a tree of this size is bound to drop a reasonable amount of leaf litter on an ongoing basis but this is hardly a legitimate reason for removal. At the time of my inspection there was not an excessive amount of accumulated material lying around the base of the tree (see photographs attached)

 

Tree root intrusion into sewerage system – The owner states that the sewerage pipes were replaced in 1983.

 

Council’s STOWE records indicate that there have been just two sewer chokes logged at this property since mid-1997 (copies on file) This could hardly be considered a serious enough problem to justify the removal of the subject tree.

 

The statement that damaged and/or blocked sewerage pipes could cost $20,000 to replace appears high given that the network has only been blocked twice by tree roots within the past five years.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The tree concerned is in excellent health and is the largest street tree growing along the northern end of Inglethorpe Avenue. The tree is approximately twenty metres in height and around ten-twelve metres across the canopy (see attached photographs).

 

The species is native to the Sydney region and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of native birds and other fauna. Its roots have caused negligible damage to surrounding public infrastructure and there is no obvious damage to any adjacent private property (see attached photographs).

 

There have been a number of street trees removed along Inglethorpe Avenue recently and as a consequence of this the street has been planted out wherever possible with Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elms). If the tree were to be removed it would be a little incongruous to replace it with a Bottlebrush species – particularly in view of the fact that Chinese Elms will be the dominant species in future years and by comparison a Bottlebrush seems inadequate.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That approval not be granted for the removal and replacement of the large, healthy Council-owned Eucalyptus species growing on the nature strip outside 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Photographs

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 








 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 28/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SECTION 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - RESTRICTION OF ACCESS  TO INFORMATION - 91 ST MARKS ROAD, RANDWICK

 

DATE:

17 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2738 xr P/005440 xr 98/S/0150

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application, under Section 12 of the Local Government Act, for access to information on the Council’s files was received from Mr C. Murtough in respect to 91 St. Marks Road, Randwick.  Access to sections of documents was restricted in this case as it was considered that allowing their total 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, 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 this particular application under Section 12 of the Act, Mr C. Murtough sought access to “all documents held concerning 91 St. Marks Road, Randwick from 1/1/1987 to date.”

 

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 this application.  He considered that it would be inappropriate to grant full access to all documents requested under Section 12 of the Act, as, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest in that  seven (7) of those documents contained the names of complainants and their addresses, etc. and in the case of those documents the relevant sections were “blacked out” and then supplied to the applicant.  The Public Officer considered that those complaints had been made in good faith and that they disclosed a contravention or possible contravention of the law for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Council to enforce or administer the law.  In addition, those complainants  were consulted and personally requested that their names and addresses, etc. be withheld from release. 

 

Accordingly, Mr Murtough was advised by the Public Officer, by fax dated 15th October, 2003, that the application for full access was refused for the aforementioned reasons.  Mr Murtough was further advised in a letter dated 16th October, 2003 of his right 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 by “blacking out” on seven (7) documents sought under the Section 12 application submitted by Mr C. Murtough 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 28/2003 be received and noted;

 

(b)        That the Council endorse the restriction placed by the Public Officer on access to  parts of seven (7) documents which were the subject of the Section 12 application submitted by Mr C. Murtough relating to 91 St. Marks Road, Randwick for the reasons detailed in the Director’s Report;

 

(c)        That it be noted that Mr C. Murtough can still exercise his right to request a review by Council on the restriction to access being lifted; and

 

(d)        That Council reconfirm its commitment to not releasing the names, addresses or identifying features of complainants, when those complaints have been made in good faith and they disclose a contravention or possible contravention of the law for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Council to enforce or administer the law.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 29/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SSROC TENDER FOR HARDWARE

 

 

DATE:

10 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4881 Pt 1

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting held Tuesday 9th September 2003, Council deferred its decision regarding Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) the tender for Hardware, pending a further financial report.

 

ISSUES:

 

SSROC agreement for the Provision of Hardware Products expired on 31 May 2003, as part if its annual works program the SSROC Supply Management Group (SMG) invited tenders on behalf of the 11 member councils and Burwood council.

 

Randwick City Council’s expenditure for the provision of Hardware products is approximately $150,000 per annum.  The combined councils expenditure for the provision of hardware products is approximately $1.25M per annum.

 

Tender

The purpose of the tender is to select a supplier for hardware products, the new contract is for a period of three years with two by one year options to extend.  The tender was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and issued on 1 April 2003.

 

SSROC appointed a tender evaluation panel comprising representatives from three participating councils:

·    Alan Higgins, Supply Coordinator, Marrickville Council;

·    Phil Crutchley, Manager, Supply & Risk Management, Hurstville City Council;

·    Don Mann, Purchasing & Supply Coordinator, Randwick City Council

 

Tenders closed at 2.00pm on Tuesday 29 April 2003, with 3 tender responses received.

 

Tender Assessment

Each tenderer was evaluated against the evaluation criteria and weightings outlined in Attachment 2. 

 

Tender responses were received from the following companies:

 

·    Confast

·    Bakers Construction (The Blackwood’s Group)

·    Express Industrial Supplies

 

The response received from Confast was not a complying tender and was thus not assessed.  The tender responses from Bakers and Express were assessed and scored against the evaluation criteria, refer Attachment 2.  A summary of responses are outlined in Attachment 3, entitled Criteria Assessment Provision of General Hardware Products.

 

A detailed Cost Evaluation, which includes Part Description, and additional financial information, is attached for information.  (Attachment 1).

 

A summary of the assessment scores for each tenderer is outlined in the table below:

 

Company

Total Score

Total Cost

Bakers Construction (Bakers)

85.5

$509,434

Express Industrial Supplies (Express)

80.0

$533,496

Confast

Culled

Culled

 

Bakers Construction

Bakers achieved the highest score overall, 5.5% above Express.  Bakers offered the lowest overall price, 5% below those offered by Express.

 

Bakers Construction is Council’s current supplier with a demonstrated level of past performance and offers a comprehensive range of products.  Bakers offered a rebate of 2.5% to SSROC on hardware products with the exception of metals and Kimberly Clark paper products.

 

A penalty clause will apply to ensure that 95% next day delivery of goods is achieved for Class ‘A’ items and 92% of Class ‘B’ items.  Where the monthly rate falls below that figure for any council on Class ‘A’ and or ‘B’ items, then a one percent rebate for that council’s monthly total spend will be included in the annual rebate to SSROC.

 

Express Industrial Supplies

Express is the NSW member of the Industrial Supplies Group and submitted a competitive tender supporting their capability to meet the selection criteria.  A site visit was conducted at Express’s premises at Padstow, confirming their ability to service the region.  Express did not score as high the following three areas:

·    Ability and capacity to serve the SSROC region

·    Competitive pricing arrangements

·    Quality of products/certification to the required standards

The prices offered by Express, while competitive were not as competitive as those offered by Bakers.

Confast

The proposal submitted by Confast was non-conforming as an electronic price list of items was not supplied and the tender response did not meet the mandatory requirements.  Therefore this tender was culled.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A benchmarking assessment was conducted between the rates offered by Bakers and the current State Procurement Contract where it was possible to benchmark like items.  This assessment indicated the prices offered by Bakers under this contract are 11% lower than the State Procurement Contract.  This assessment offers an indication only and is not conclusive, as comparison was possible on 32 of the 185 items.

 

Evaluation of the Tenderers against the evaluation criteria indicates that Bakers Construction submitted the most competitive tender, representing the best value for money to councils.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council receives and accepts the additional information attached to this report and accepts the tender submitted by Bakers Construction for the supply of Hardware as recommended by SSROC SMG;

 

2.   That the General Manager, or delegated representative, be authorised to enter into an agreement for a period of than three years, with the option of extending the agreement period for a further two years in 12 month periods; and

 

3.   That the unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the tender results.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Amended Cost Evaluation.

2. Tender Scores and Weighting List. 

3. Criteria Assessment Provision of General Hardware Products.  – ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 


Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 30/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

RISK BUDGET

 

 

DATE:

23 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5280

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council’s Risk budget currently comprises insurance operating expenses and costs only.  This report seeks to extend the current risk budget to include an operating expense with funds for risk management, which will facilitate a reduction in exposure levels of risk for Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The introduction of the Civil Liability (Personal Responsibility) Amendment Act 2002, has placed Local Government in a position where it can move forward with certainty and a reasonable amount of legislative protection.  The new legislation is designed to be coupled with appropriate Risk Management techniques.  Without Risk Management Practices in place there will be a diminution of the effect of the legislative protection.  A key component of progress in this area is the fact that our insurer, Statewide, is intending to reward those Councils that have implemented good Risk Management Practices and conversely may issue premium penalties for those Councils that are uncooperative in implementing such practices.

 

Through Council expanding and improving its Risk Management Practices, it maximizes Council’s opportunities to achieve future financial rewards through reduced premiums and reduced liability claims.

 

The Court decisions and intention of the legislation is that councils will act responsibly and ensure than an adequate inspection program/system be in place that ascertains the existence of real risks.  The procedures and standards contained in the Roads, Footpaths, Trees and Tree Root and Gathering Information Best Practice Manuals will need to be implemented by all councils to ensure that defence to claims can be maximized under the wording and intention of the Act.  In line with this, the Statewide Mutual Liability Board of Management will be monitoring the implementation of the Best Practice Manual procedures by each member council through the annual Public Liability Audit.

 

Based on Council’s Public Liability Audit Results, the following areas need to be addressed to ensure the minimum requirements are met:

·    Compilation of information

·    Establish a register of all risk documents and assessment practices

·    Establishment of a Risk Policy

·    Establishment of a Signs Policy

·    Assessment of signs and their compliance with the Australian Standard 2416.

·    Establish and record formal inspection programs

·    Signs

·    Gathering Information

·    Footpaths

 

Overall, 17 areas from the audit have been targeted for improvement to be achieved by the next Public Liability Audit, due in March 2004.  To achieve these targets, funding is required for resources and to allow for inspections and assessments to be conducted in order to meet the basic risk requirements.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

To achieve improved risk management practices and decrease the liability exposure to Council, funds are required to be allocated in order to achieve this objective and implement sustainable risk management practices.

 

The findings of the Public Liability Audit Results (Attachment 1) established that Council was not comparable with the region and statewide average for Signs, Gathering Information, Footpaths and Applications.

 

Savings were achieved in the 2002/2003 insurance excess budget, of $104,109, it would be prudent for these savings to be allocated to the 2003/2004 budget to make provision for risk management.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council supports the requirement to improve its Risk Management Practices to a level comparable with the region and statewide average and gain the advantages available from such constructive action; and

 

2.   That Council allocates the amount of $104,109 to risk management measures for this financial year 2003/2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. 2003 Public Liability Audit Results Graph. UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 83/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

11-15 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

21 October, 2003

FILE NO:

541/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for the Development Application No 541/03 for the demolition of 3 existing dwellings and construction of a 3-4 storey residential flat building (19 dwellings) and basement carparking for 28 cars.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 8 October, 2003

2. A5 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

8 October, 2003

FILE NO:

D0541/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of 3 existing dwellings and construction of 3-4 storey residential flat building (19 dwellings) and basement carparking for 28 cars

PROPERTY:

 11-15 Alexander Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Hill Thallis Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $5,000,000.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site, excavate and construct a single level of basement carparking and a new nulto unit residential development on the site at 11-15 Alexander Street, Coogee. The development will comprise of 19 residential units within a 3-4 storey envelope. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the development will be via Alexander Street.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site, consolidate the allotments and construct a new multi-unit development with nineteen (19) dwellings over 3-4 storeys, at 11-15 Alexander Street in Coogee. 2x1 bed, 14x2 bed, 2x2 bed+study and 1x3 bedroom unit are proposed (a total of 19 units). Basement carparking for 28 vehicles and storage for each unit is also proposed. At ground landscaping as well as elevated balconies and terraces are included in the proposal.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Alexander Street in Coogee and consists of a three separate allotments, having a combined frontage to Alexander Street of 35.455 metres. The site is regular-shaped the northern and southern side boundaries of the site each measure 42.67 metres. The western (front) and eastern (rear) boundaries measure 35.455 metres each. The total area of the site is 1503.3m². The site is sloped from east to west and from south to north resulting in a difference in level between these boundaries of 3 metres and 4 metres respectively and a crossfall from the southeastern corner of the site to the northwestern corner.

 

The site is currently occupied by two single storey dwellings (11 and 11A Alexander Street and a two storey dwelling (15 Alexander Street). These dwellings are all setback approximately 8 metres from Alexander Street with large yards to the rear. Each dwelling has a driveway crossover and garaging to the side boundary.

 

 

Development in the locality is characterised by generally higher density residential uses and a variety of architectural styles and construction eras. To the north of the site is a three storey residential flat building (7-9 Alexander Street). To the south is a two storey residential flat building (17 Alexander Street). To the west of the site are two 4 storey residential flat buildings that have their main address to Arden Street (320 and 322 Arden Street). 320 Arden Street is built above ground level garages and is almost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


5 storeys in height. Due to the slope of the land these buildings are elevated above the site. Across Alexander Street to the west of the site is a three storey residential flat building (built above ground level parking) known as 10 Alexander Street and a pair of single storey semi-detached houses (6-8 Alexander Street). Across Alexander Street to the southwest is a three storey block of flats (12-16 Alexander Street).

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council’s records indicate the previous development applications over the property:

 

01/00465/GE

Demolish existing dwellings and construct a residential flat building comprising 23 dwellings.

Withdrawn 22/08/01

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 27 February 2003 for a proposal to redevelop the site for 20 units. The main outcome of the discussions was a concern that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site due to substantial non-compliances with FSR (1.35:1) and overall height of (13m) and external wall height of (11.3m), however a reduction in gross floor area was suggested in Council’s pre-lodgement advice. The applicant responded to the pre-lodgement advice by reducing the number of units proposed from 20 to 19, reducing the FSR of the scheme lodged to Council on 30 June, 2003.

 

In response to concerns raised by Council and surrounding residents, the applicant lodged amended plans on 7 October, 2003. The amendments substantially reduced the amount of floor area at the front of the ‘attic’ level and reduced the area of the roof top terrace increasing the width of perimeter planting. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.   S. Vasiliadis, 4/7-9 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Council’s FSR, height and external wall height controls are exceeded

Comment: Statutory non compliances are discussed under sections 9.1,9.2, below.

 

§ Privacy

Comment: Separation of over 10 metres is provided. Privacy is discussed in detail in section 9.8 of this report.

 

§ Parking

Comment: Parking complies with the DCP – Parking see discussion under section 9.12.

 

§ Proposed planting of pencil pines will cast shadow on my ground floor apartment.

Comment: 7-9 Alexander Street is to the north of the site, no overshadowing will occur as a result of the proposal or plantings.

 

2.   M. Anderson, 8/7-9 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Breaches regulations

§ Parking

§ Privacy, to northern and southern sides

§ Population density will lead to increased noise levels and reduction of greenery and natural light

As above, issues raised have been covered in detail in this report.

 

3.   G. Bell, 1/7 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Concerned that applicant is a company that has completed numerous box-like buildings in the Randwick LGA

§ Our building is Federation in style and we hope any new construction is as tasteful

Comment: Council’s Urban Design Review Panel has provided comment on SEPP 65 considerations including aesthetics. The proposal is considered satisfactory.

 

4.   A. Butter, 10/7-9 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Excessive scale and height, adversely affects neighbours and streetscape

§ FSR and height exceed permissible by substantial degree

§ Building is effectively 5 storeys high, incorporating ‘attic’ level outside of Council’s controls

§ Bulk will be visible from surrounding apartments, despite being setback from the street

§ Attic is not ‘interesting’, nor ‘compatible with developments surrounding the site’ as stated in the applicant’s SEE.

§ Building will not have a positive impact on streetscape as stated in SEE

§ Attic structures result in excess FSR and height, an obtrusive development to neighbours, have no positive aesthetic or other virtues, are only included to increase developer’s profits and should be deleted.

Comment: Non-compliances, bulk and scale and streetscape impacts have been addressed in detail in relevant sections of this report.

 

§ Objects to the applicant’s SEE which seeks to rebut public submissions in advance. Such ‘spin-doctoring’ should not be allowed to sway the decision of the consent authority

Comment: The applicant’s statement has not been relied upon in this assessment.

 

5.   G.E & D.A Bell, 1/7-9 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Non-compliance with FSR. FSR control is put in place to protect the interests of surrounding neighbours and should not be overruled.

§ Non-compliance with overall height. Controls should not be waived to increase developer’s profits.

§ Non-compliance with wall height, developer should not be able to exceed restrictions put in place to protect residents.

§ Loss of privacy 8 units above ground floor have primary living areas towards north (and 7-9 Alexander Street). Balustrading to balconies should be of obscured glass at very least.

§ Traffic safety and inadequate parking

§ Overdevelopment of the area, Alexander Street has reached saturation point with regard to multi-unit housing developments.

§ Unattractive design

Comment: These issues have been covered in detail in relevant sections of this report.

 

6.   I.Roberts & N.Stahl, 7/7 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Not happy with a delay (two days) between date of notification letter and time of receipt.

§ Courier is not widely received in Alexander Street, advertising of proposal did not provide any benefit of additional time to respond.

§ Notification needs to be broader as developments affect more properties than just those immediately surrounding the subject site.

Comment: Notification and advertising of the proposal occurred in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP.

 

§ Parking is inadequate, will exacerbate safety issues such as cars parking on median strips and too close to corners. Council’s DCP rate of 1.5 cars per 3 bedroom unit is inadequate, needs to be reconsidered.

§ Assessment needs to take in cumulative effect of all developments approved in the area. Environmental impact study is required as resources and infrastructure are already at capacity.

§ Non-compliances with height, wall height and FSR shows disregard for surrounding residents and ignorance of controls.

§ Privacy – 7 balconies and living areas face bedrooms of 7 Alexander Street

§ Pencil Pines are an inappropriate planting to the northern boundary of the site. These trees are not native, are dark and heavy and create debris that will cause maintenance problems for both buildings.

Comment: These issues have been discussed in detail in relevant sections of this report.

 

7.   J.Rowse, Chairperson SP 6452 (10 Alexander Street, Coogee), 18/10 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Concern regarding scale of the proposal and that applicant’s documentation in relation to community consultation misrepresents resident’s concerns.

§ Concerned that formal notification has not yet been received although site notice is affixed to the property.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

8.   J.Rowse, Chairperson SP 6452 (10 Alexander Street, Coogee), 18/10 Alexander Street, Coogee (on behalf of owners corporation)

 

§ FSR is non-compliant and excessive and will result in overdevelopment placing too much stress on infrastructure, the environment and residents

§ Building height and wall height are excessive

§ Bulk and scale is not consistent with the rest of the street and will result in impacts on solar access and outlook of surrounding properties

§ “Attic” is a misnomer for the fourth level and large entertaining area to the front of the building which will impact adversely on visual and acoustic privacy.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

9.   J.Condon, 3/10 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Excessive FSR, 4 storeys rather than 3 results in bulk and scale impacts

§ A smaller development would be more acceptable and would be more in keeping with existing development in the street.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

10. M.Buscombe, 8/10 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ FSR is excessive

§ Height exceeds control by 3m and is excessive

§ Wall height exceeds control by 2m

§ The ‘attic’ area is a fourth living area above basement

§ No objection to redevelopment of the site per se but requests that amendments are sought to achieve compliance with present planning guidelines.

§ Alexander Street is steep and narrow and proposal will set an undesirable precedent.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

11. A & S. Lewis, 2/12 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Excessive scale and bulk

§ FSR and height exceed permissible by substantial degree

§ Building is effectively 5 storeys high, incorporating ‘attic’ level outside of Council’s controls

§ Objects to the applicant’s SEE which seeks to rebut public submissions in advance. Such ‘spin-doctoring’ should not be allowed to sway the decision of the consent authority

§ Bulk will be visible from surrounding apartments, despite being setback from the street

§ Attic is not ‘interesting’, nor ‘compatible with developments surrounding the site’ as stated in the applicant’s SEE.

§ Building will not have a positive impact on streetscape as stated in SEE

§ Attic structures result in excess FSR and height, an obtrusive development to neighbours, have no positive aesthetic or other virtues, are only included to increase developer’s profits and should be deleted.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

12. A.Anderson, 3/322 Arden Street, Coogee

 

§ Height is excessive, reducing access to afternoon sun, outlook and reduce value of the property.

Comment: Properties at 322 Arden Street will not be affected by significant additional overshadowing. The change in level between the sites, proposed landscaping and separation distances will ensure the proposal does not significantly impact on outlook or visual bulk and scale to these properties.

 

13. D. Wood, 1/17 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Parking is an issue, as it was with previous application for development on this site.

§ Alexander Street should be made one-way and angled parking provided

§ Residents should be compensated for impacts from construction noise and traffic by fixing the parking problem.

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

14. S.Steiner, 2/17 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Traffic safety and parking congestion

§ Damage due to excavation, inconvenience of allowing access so that a dilapidation report can be completed and inconvenience of allowing access to repair damage.

Comment: Condition 24 requires a dilapidation report be prepared. Residents will need to grant access in order to ensure correct information regarding the existing condition of their property can be obtained.

§ Privacy

§ Loss of sunshine and outlook due to non-compliance with height and FSR

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

15. T.Fowler, 6 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Amenity impacts of large block opposite

§ Style of the building is not in keeping with the architecture of the adjoining units

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

16. Mr & Mrs G. Hagarty, 6 Alexander Street, Coogee

 

§ Excessive height due to attic level (4th storey)

§ Design of the building is out of keeping with the rest of the street

Comment: These issues are addressed above and in this report.

 

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  Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

The proposal

 

Demolition of three (3) dwellings and construction of new residential flat building with basement car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class 2                      -           Residential units

Class 7a        -           Car park

 

Key Issues

 

BCA, fire safety, site management, disabled, Occupational Health and Safety.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Conditions suggested by Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services have been included in the recommendation (see Conditions 14-53).

 

6.2  Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

Amended details have been received in regards to the application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 19 units

 

The amendments to the submitted application relate to the car park layout and in particular increased dimensions of car spaces and ramp grades.

 

The 19 units have also been changed from 2 x 1-bedroom, 15 x 2-bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom units to 2 x 1-bedroom, 14 x 2-bedroom, 2 x 2 bedroom + study apartments and 1 x 3-bedroom unit.

 

The AIS Dept has taken into consideration the amended plans and advise the EPCD Dept that our report is as follows:

 

Landscape Comments

1.       There are several trees, located within No.15 Alexander Street, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a)       One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the front yard of the property. This tree is approximately 10-12 metres tall, in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As per the results of the pre-lodgement meeting on 25/02/2003, permission would be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

b)       One (1) Chamaecyparis species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of the site, close to the southern boundary. This tree is approximately 7 metres tall and although it is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, it is in poor health and as such permission would be granted for its removal.

 

c)       Five (5) Ailanthus species (Tree of Heaven) located within the rear yard of the site, towards the rear boundary. These trees are approximately 12-15 metres tall, in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. However, an Arborists Report has been received, recommending that these trees be removed and replaced because they are not an appropriate species for this area. Council’s Tree Preservation Officers have also been consulted on this matter and they agree with the Arborists recommendation. As such permission would be granted for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of five (5) large replacement trees along the rear boundary to compensate for the loss of screening.

 

2.       There is one tree, located within No.13 Alexander Street, that may be affected by the proposed works:

 

a)       One (1) Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted Gum) located within the south eastern corner of the rear yard of the site. This tree is approximately 12-15 metres tall, in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As such it is recommended that this tree should be retained as part of this application.

 

3.       There are several trees, located within No.11 Alexander Street, that may be affected by the proposed works, including:

 

a)       One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of the site, close to the rear boundary. This tree is approximately 10 metres tall and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As per the results of the pre-lodgement meeting on 25/02/2003, permission would be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

b)       One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of the site, close to the southern boundary. This tree is approximately 10 metres tall and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As per the results of the pre-lodgement meeting on 25/02/2003, permission would be granted for the removal of this tree, subject to the planting of one replacement tree within the site.

 

c)       Two (2) Morus species (Mulberry Trees) located within the front yard of the site, along the northern boundary. These trees are 6-8 metres tall and covered by Council’s tree Preservation Order, however, both trees have poor form and are in only average health. As such permission would be granted for their removal.

 

4.       There is one (1) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located within the adjoining property to the rear of No.11 Alexander Street, close to the western boundary. This tree is a very large and significant specimen, approximately 20 metres tall, in good health and covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree must be retained as part of this application and as such conditions would be applied to require that there be no excavations or cutting/battering of the soil within 4.5 metres of the rear boundary fence.

 

Drainage Comments

 

The applicant will have the option of limiting the stormwater discharge from the site so it will not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm and upgrading the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street.

 

OR

 

Extending Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage.

 

It is noted that the submitted drainage plans have the seepage/sub soil drainage water draining to Council’s stormwater system. Seepage/sub soil drainage water is not to be drained to Council’s kerb and gutter or stormwater system and the DA consent has been conditioned accordingly.

 

Waste Management Comments

Sufficient space has been allocated for the storage of the required number of garbage and recycling bins. All waste bins will be presented for collection in Alexander Street and access to the kerb is satisfactory, with sufficient space for the presentation of the required number of bins.

 

Traffic Comments

For medium density developments (i.e. less than 20 units)

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 19 residential units will be in the range of 76 to 95 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 10 vehicles per hour is considered low to moderate and no delays should be experienced in Alexander Street as a result of this development.

 

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

 

The driveway opening at the Alexander Street frontage must be 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Conditions suggested by Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services have been included in the recommendation (see Conditions 54-101).

 

6.3 RCC Design Review Panel

 

The proposal was considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 1 September, 2003. In response the following comments were received:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

Noted that Phillip Thalis declared an interest and left the room during discussions on this item.

 

The application is a good and thorough one and the design is consistent with SEPP 65 principles.

 

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel noted that FSR and height standards are exceeded, however considered that only if Council considers that view loss objections are warranted it should be reduced in height.

 

7    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

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

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

-       Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan, 2000

-       DCP - Parking

-       Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

(a)      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(c) 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(1) - Landscape Area

50% site area (751m2)

56% (845m2)

Yes

31(3) – Landscape over basement

Must not exceed 50% of landscaped area (375m2)

33% (250m2)

Yes

32 – FSR

0.9:1 (1,352m2)

1.14:1 (1,720m2)

No1

33(2) – Overall Building Height

12m

8.68-15.96m

No1

33(4) – Wall Height

10m

8.68-13.28m

No1

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

No

N/A

 

(b)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

 

An objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged to support non-compliances with Council’s FSR, overall height and wall height standards as set by clauses 32(1) , 33(2) and 33(4) of the LEP 1998. The SEPP 1 objections are discussed in detail in sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this report.

 

(c)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. Due to the previous use of the site for residential purposes, it is considered that there is little likelihood for contamination and the site is suitable for the residential use proposed.

 

(d)      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application has been referred to Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel indicated the proposal was consistent with the design principles contained within SEPP 65.

 

The Panel considered the height and FSR of the proposal to be appropriate, subject to confirmation that the proposal would not result in view loss. The objections received related to loss of outlook, rather than loss of view and these issues have been partially resolved in the amendments received on 7 October 2003.

 

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

 

8.3 Policy Controls

a.    Multi- Unit Housing Development Control Plan, 2000

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance 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 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

Northern Side:

Average 7.2m

Minimum 3.5m

 

Southern Side:

Average 6.2m

Minimum 3.5m

 

NorthernSide:11.5m, doesn’t comply but meets objectives, +3m step

Southern side: <10m, +3m step

 

 
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 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Complies

Minimum 6.4m

Average of 6.6m does not comply, however area weighted average (using length of wall against length of boundary is 11 metres and complies).

 

Maximum length of wall is 18 metres and does not comply, however colours and finishes are adequate to provide visual interest in the rear elevation.

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Complies

Surrounding buildings have a similar bulk and scale.

 

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.

 

 

1-2.7m high solid fence to portion of front boundary.

1.8m 50% open to remainder of boundary. Entrance to building highlighted and planting incorporated to soften solid fence sections.

Refer to Section 9.6 for further discussion.

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Complies 3.5m

 

 

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

Privacy is provided by change in level and orientation of private open space to dwellings. Private open space is accessed from main living areas of the dwellings.

 

 

Complies

Front fences to ground floor units are well-elevated from street level.

 

 

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.

 

Complies

25m2 4m x 4m

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Complies

8m2(+)

2m2(+)

 

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.

 

 

 

Complies Separation of over 10m provided see discussion under section 9.8.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies. Separation distances are adequate and blade walls between adjacent dwellings provide privacy screening.

 

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

BCA compliance required

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

No view loss impact, impact on outlook reduced by amendments.

 

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

3 hours (+) provided to windows and rear yards of adjoining properties. See discussion under Section 9.10.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Complies

All dwellings achieve rating of 3.5-5.0 stars.

 

Majority of living areas face north

 

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Conditions imposed

 

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

 

Complies

 

 

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

 

 

Complies

Standards rendered masonry construction.

 

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

Walls to front boundary but street entry overlooked.

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

Not indicated, details to be provided at CC stage (see condition 3).

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

19

 

1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

Complies

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

4.75

 

Complies

 

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 .

 

 

9 basement storage areas provided, 10 units will be without basement storage, however apartment sizes are adequate to include storage.

 

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.

 

 

Complies (1 dwelling)

 

 

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

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

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

 

 

Complies

 

UTILITIES/SITE FACILITIES

 

 

P1-6Provide adequate facilities in line with requirements of service authorities

 

 

Complies

 

 

P7 Laundry and Drying Facilities

·    An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

·    Communal clothes drying accessible and screened from the street and public places.

 

 

Complies
 
 

 

 

Complies

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of t and is not obtrusive.

 

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

 

Complies

 

b.         DCP – Parking

 

Parking rates and layout requirements for multi-unit housing are contained within the DCP - Parking.

 

 

 

 

Item

DCP Parking Requirement

Proposed

Allocation

Complies

Residential

2x1 b/r

16x2 b/r

1x3 b/r

 

2x1 =2

16 x 1.2 = 19.2

1 x 1.5 = 1.5

 

2

19

2

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Visitor

1 per 4 units

19/4=4.75

5

Yes

Total

28 spaces

28 spaces

Yes

Bicycle Parking

Units

Visitors

1 per 3 units (6)

1 per 10 units (1)

6 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

Yes

Car wash bay

1 per 12 units (1)

1 space

Yes

 

Discussion of compliance with Council’s DCP – Parking is included under Section 9.12 of this report.

 

8.4 Council Policies

(b)        Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes 16 additional dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities, townscape improvements and administration charges totalling $40,070.90 (see Condition ).

 

9    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1 Height

 

The development has an overall height ranging between 8.68 and 15.96 metres resulting in a non-compliance with the statutory standard of 12 metres. The maximum external wall height of the development also varies due to the sloping topography and articulation of the building and ranges from 8.68 to 13.28 metres.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clauses 33(2) (Overall Height) and clause 33(4) (External Wall Height) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·    The departure from the 12 metre control is not noticeable from the street because:

·    the upper level of the rear building is set well back from side and rear boundaries.

·      The attic area to Alexander Street occupies only a small section of roof area

·      The innovative roof design

·      Other buildings in the street exhibit a similar level of height variation due to the steep topography of the street.

·    The proposal complies with the standard on the southeastern corner of the building but due to the topography the non-compliance increases as the land falls away.

·    The development is compatible and consistent with the form of existing development and building forms envisaged by the zoning

·    The amenity of adjoining development has been given detailed consideration in the design of the development with care taken to minimise overlooking, overshadowing and view loss.

 

The applicant has also submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33(4) (External Wall Height) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·    Essentially the building complies with the wall height controls on the southern elevation but as the site falls away the level of non-compliance increases. The proposed variation is similar to other height variations on the eastern side of Alexander Street and as such the proposed development does not dominate the streetscape. This is well illustrated on the street perspective submitted with the application which shows that almost all of the building on this side of the street exceed the wall height and/ or the overall height limit due to the steep topography.

·    The proposed development is of a height size and bulk which is generally in keeping with the existing development in the surrounding locality and is consistent with the form of development envisaged for the zoning. The proposed building has been designed to break up the building mass and provide an appropriate articulation of building form.

·    The amenity of adjoining development has been given detailed consideration in the design of the development with great care taken to minimise overlooking, overshadowing and view loss. This has been achieved by setting the rear block well off the boundaries, minimising the building footprint above ground level and exceeding the landscaped open space requirements.

·    The preservation of privacy has been achieved by design elements such as the orientation of units and their location respective to the fall of the land and the location of windows and living areas. Accordingly, the proposed non-compliance with the maximum wall height is not likely to adversely affect the surrounding properties in terms of loss of privacy.

 

The objective of Council’s overall and wall height standards are to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed development meets the statutory external wall height standard of 10 metres on the southern, eastern and at the street edge of the western elevation. The northern elevation exceeds the standard by 1.76-2.66 metres. The area of the rear building that is visible on the western elevation and is setback from the street exceeds the standard by 3.28 metres. The degree of non-compliance with the standards approximates the 3-4 metre change in level across the site. The areas of non-compliance with the external wall height standard largely result from the topography of the site, which results in a lower ground level at points of non-compliance. Potential impacts of these areas of non-compliance have been offset by the reduced wall height (below the 10m standard) of the other elevations of the development and the articulation of the facades, including generous setbacks which provides interest and reduces their bulk.

 

A measure as to the suitability of the development and the extent of impact to adjoining properties are the minimum amenity standards contained within Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The applicant has provided detailed shadow diagrams in plan and elevational form. The additional height of the proposal will not result in excessive overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties during the midwinter period, and will result in reduced shadows to the adjoining building to the south due to the increased side setbacks of the development. The proposal maintains solar access to adjoining properties. The area of non-compliance with the external wall height standard results in shadows being cast within the area already shadowed by existing development on the site and adjoining properties. The additional wall height of the development will not significantly reduce solar access to adjoining properties at midwinter.

 

The non-compliance of the development will not result in significant impacts on visual and acoustic privacy for surrounding dwellings. Despite the increased height of the northern side of the building, the wall of the rear section of the proposal is setback 8 metres from the side boundary, providing approximately 14 metres separation between the proposal and the existing building at 7-9 Alexander Street. Nine metres separation is considered adequate for the maintenance of visual privacy. Balconies on the northern elevation are small and will not result in acoustic privacy impacts to surrounding properties. The large terrace to the western elevation has been reduced in size, but still has the potential to be used for large gatherings that could have an impact on the acoustic privacy of surrounding properties. Condition 2 requires the applicant to remove all trafficable roof area from the western portion of the top floor in order to reduce the potential for impacts to surrounding properties.

 

Existing development on Arden Street and topography of the area limits the potential for easterly views from properties to the west of the subject site. The proposal will not result in view loss from surrounding properties. Residents directly opposite the site to the west raised concern regarding bulk and scale impacts from the top floor of the building as viewed from their second and third storey units. To reduce this impact the applicant has submitted amendments which substantially reduce the size of the top floor of Apartment 15.

 

The area of non-compliance with the wall height standard proposed by the development will not result in significant adverse impacts on existing residential development. The development meets the objective of the external wall height and overall height standards, being to set upper limits for the height of buildings which are consistent with other development controls such as FSR and landscaping and have regard to the amenity of surrounding properties. As such it is unnecessary and unreasonable to enforce the height standard in this case. It is considered that SEPP 1 objections in relation to these standards are well founded and should be supported.

9.2 Density

 

The FSR of the proposal (as amended) is 1.14:1 (1,720.12m2) and exceeds that permissible under clause 32(1) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 0.9:1 (1,352.97m2) by 367.15m2. The applicant submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, in relation to non-compliance of the scheme, prior to amendments reducing the floor area of the development (by 30m2) and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed building has been designed to accommodate the site topography, to be compatible with adjacent and surrounding buildings and to minimise impact on adjoining development. The proposal has been reduced in scale in accordance with pre-DA discussions with Council officers with the FSR substantially reduced, one unit deleted and side boundary setbacks increased to reduce privacy concerns and improve residential amenity.

·    The height of the building is compatible with surrounding development, the attic floor has been set well back and provides an interesting roof form which adds to the appearance of the building.

·    The proposed building is softened through the use of landscaping elements in the form of perimeter planting. The building has also been located to accommodate well landscaped setbacks with depths of soil capable of screening the proposed development.

·    The proposed development has been sited to minimise the loss of views and protect solar access to adjoining buildings.

·    Given the bulk and scale of the properties surrounding the site, the proposal will not set an undesirable precedent in the area. The proposal satisfies the objectives of the FSR development standard despite the variation.

 

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment. An accepted measure of the impacts on amenity is the degree of compliance a proposal achieves with Council’s amenity standards for overshadowing, visual privacy, views etc.

 

Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.9:1. The FSR standard makes a general relationship between the site area and allowable density in order to ensure Council’s other statutory and policy controls can be met. Despite the non-compliance with the FSR standard, the proposal achieves a high degree of compliance with Council’s controls for landscaping, setbacks and carparking. As discussed in this report, and the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the FSR non-compliance will not result in overshadowing, inadequate landscaping or privacy impacts. The amendments made to the upper floor of the development have reduced its visual bulk and increased the setback to the upper level of the building from the street.

 

The redevelopment of the site for multi-unit housing is consistent with the objectives of the 2(C) zoning. Current development on the site has a density less than that envisaged by the 2(C) zone. The addition of sixteen dwellings in this location is not excessive and can be accommodated on the site. Surrounding buildings are of a similar bulk and scale to the proposal as indicated by the photos in section 3 of this report and the drawings submitted with the application. The development is consistent with surrounding built forms and will not result in excessive building bulk on the street. The site is not highly visible from surrounding areas or the foreshore and the bulk of the additional floor space has been adequately articulated to reduce impacts on the outlook of surrounding properties.

 

The non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard contained in clause 32 of the Randwick LEP will not result in significant impacts on adjoining development and therefore strict compliance is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It would be unreasonable to enforce compliance with the FSR standard contained within the RLEP when the proposed development on the site achieves the underlying purpose of the standard and meets Council’s controls with regard to streetscape, residential amenity, landscaping and parking. It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

9.3 Desired Future Character

 

The site is considered to be in a Type 7 – Mixed Building Type Area under Part 2 of the Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The site is located amongst a variety of development types including 3-5 storey 1960-70s walk-up flats, more contemporary residential flat buildings and freestanding dwelling houses. The topography of the area results in buildings that front Arden Street (to the east of the site) are visible behind the site and contribute to its context. The topography also makes differences in height difficult to discern. The development is of a consistent scale with the adjoining 3-5 storey residential flat buildings.

 

The contemporary design of the proposal has considered the existing development and will make a positive contribution to the mixed character of the area.

 

9.4 Site Planning

 

A site analysis plan was provided with the application. The site has been considered in terms of existing development, topography and vegetation. The site is of a regular shape and has frontage to Alexander Street of over 35 metres. The site frontage dimension meets Council’s preferred solution of 20 metres, due to the amalgamation of three sites.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to site planning.

 

9.5 Building Setbacks

 

The development provides setbacks to all boundaries. The front (west) setback of 6.5 metres is consistent with the adjoining development at 7-9 and 17 Alexander Street. At street level a split-stone wall is proposed to the carparking which will be setback 1.8 metres providing terraces to ground floor units that project into the front setback and provide surveillance of the street. The front setback of the development complies with Council’s preferred solutions and is consistent with the existing context.

 

Setbacks to the rear boundary range from 6.46-6.96 metres. The minimum rear setback stipulated by Council is 6 metres and the development meets this requirement. The preferred solution of a minimum average setback of 8 metres to the rear boundary is not met by the proposal. Despite non-compliance with the average rear setback, the proposal meets Council’s landscaping standards and aligns with the adjoining building to the north (7-9 Alexander Street). The adjoining development to the east is setback 12.6 metres from the rear boundary. These setbacks result in a separation between the buildings of 19 metres, which is satisfactory to maintain privacy. Due to the change in level between the properties, and the elevation of buildings to the rear above garages, upper floors of the buildings at 320 and 322 Arden Street are set well above the top of the proposal. The rear setbacks are satisfactory.

 

The preferred solution for side boundary setbacks under the Multi-Unit Housing DCP is that buildings are set back an average of 5 metres from the side boundary and that no part of the building is closer than 3.5 metres from the side boundary. The proposal generally provides more generous setbacks than required under Council’s preferred solution and meets the objectives of maintenance of solar access, privacy and provides opportunities for landscaping.

 

The western (front) wing of the building is setback the minimum 3.5 metres from the side boundaries for 9m of its length. Windows to these areas are bathroom and bedroom windows and will not significantly impact the privacy of adjoining properties. The remainder of the building is setback 8 metres from the side boundaries and result in the development maintaining an average setback to the northern boundary of 7.2 metres and to the southern boundary of 6.2 metres.

 

The generous setbacks provided has resulted in an improvement in solar access to the adjoining property to the south (17 Alexander Street) from noon onwards midwinter  and only a slight increase (to two windows) during midwinter mornings. The improvement is due to the demolition of the existing two storey structure which is located closer to the southern boundary than the proposal.

 

The development meets the requirement for articulation to all elevations, providing modulation of all wall surfaces and minimising flat areas of façade to less than ten (10) metres in length. The materials and finishes indicated with the application add to the visual interest of the facades and are well integrated to emphasise the articulation of the building.

 

9.6 Fences

 

The front fencing to the proposal is formed by the carpark walls and balustrading to terraces of ground floor units. Due to the sloping topography the walls range in height from 1 to 2.6 metres. This does not comply with Council’s preferred solution of 1.2 metres for solid front fences. The proposal meets the objective of the preferred solution, incorporating planting to provide visual interest and softening to the street. The ground floor terraces above the fence will allow for visual surveillance of the street despite the solid walls. To the northern and southern ends of the Alexander Street frontage open fencing to a height of 1.8 metres is provided, which complies with Council’s preferred solution. Fencing to side and rear boundaries has not been indicated, however Condition 3 requires fencing to these boundaries to be consistent with Council’s DCP.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives for fencing under section 3.5 of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.7 Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 56% (845m2) of the site area as landscaping. This exceeds the statutory requirement under clause 31(2) of the RLEP98 of 50% (751m2) by over 90m2. The amount of landscaping over the basement/ podium levels represents 33% (250m2)of the landscaping requirement and complies with the maximum permissible under clause 31(3) of the RLEP98, being 50% of (375m2) of the required landscaping.

 

The objective of the landscaping standards is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes. The landscape plan lodged with the application indicates retention of existing mature native trees as well as additional perimeter planting to all boundaries. The compliance of the development with all statutory requirements for landscaping provides generous areas of open space that can be used for recreational purposes and also makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

A large area of deep soil planting is proposed which will ensure maximum stormwater infiltration in accordance with Council’s objectives for stormwater management and amenity. The proposal provides adequate areas of communal and private open space which adds to the amenity of the units. Communal facilities such as clothes drying areas have been incorporated into the landscaping plans.

 

Council’s Landscape Officer has several trees that may be affected by the works and granted approval to their removal, subject to replacement plantings (see Condition 98). Retention of two significant trees has also been imposed via conditions of consent (see Condition 100).

 

9.8 Privacy

 

Setbacks to all boundaries meet Council’s minimum preferred solutions and are more generous than required, minimising the impact of the proposal on the visual and acoustic privacy of surrounding properties. Where setbacks are less than the preferred average solution (such as to the rear boundary) separation distances greater than 9 metres are provided ensuring there will be no significant visual privacy impacts from the development.

 

Balconies to upper levels of the northern elevation are 2.4 metres deep and do not allow for large noisy gatherings. The top floor of the building looks over the roof of the adjoining development at 7-9 Alexander Street and will not result in significant privacy impacts. The three first floor balconies that face 7-9 Alexander Street are sufficiently separated from this building to minimise impacts. Balconies to the southern elevation (17 Alexander Street) are to bedrooms only and are limited in width to 1.2 metres.

 

In response to residents’ concerns and the concerns of Council, the applicant has reduced the size of the top floor terrace to apartment 15 to the front of the building. Despite the reduction, this area is still approximately 75m2 in area and is considered to represent opportunities for large gatherings, resulting in noise impacts to surrounding properties. The location of the terrace at the front of the site will not have an adverse impact in terms of visual privacy. Condition 2 requires the terrace, planters and pergola to be deleted.

 

The development has incorporated features to mitigate privacy impacts and (subject to conditions) meets Council’s performance requirements and preferred solutions with regard to privacy.

 

9.9 View Sharing

 

The building will not result in significant view loss due to the extent of existing development and the topography of the area.

 

In response to concerns raised by residents’ opposite the site in relation to visual bulk and scale impacts, the applicant has reduced the upper level of Unit 15 to a small study area and lift core. This has increased the setback of the top floor level to over 12 metres, which has reduced the visual impact of the development from the upper levels of buildings across Alexander Street.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to view and outlook sharing.

 

9.10                 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

With regard to solar access, the proposal meets the requirements of the DCP maintaining at least 3 hours of midwinter solar access per day to surrounding properties. The generous setbacks provided has resulted in an improvement in solar access to the adjoining property to the south (17 Alexander Street) from noon onwards midwinter  and only a slight increase (to two windows) during midwinter mornings. Living areas within the development have been located to maximise exposure to the northern aspect in order to achieve good solar access to the dwellings.

 

The layout of the building with an open central circulation core allows for the provision of operable windows to habitable rooms and encourages passive ventilation to all units in accordance with ESD principles. The incorporation of some two-storey units into the mix has increased opportunities for cross ventilation and improved the amenity of the dwellings.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report of the dwellings in the proposed development, which shows that all dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5-5 stars. These ratings meet Council’s minimum requirement of 3.5 stars.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to solar access and energy efficiency.

 

9.11                 Safety and Security

 

The development meets the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP with regard to safety and security. The development provides a primary and secondary entrance entry to the development, which are both accessed via a security gate. A security grille is also provided to the carparking to ensure that access is limited to residents and legitimate visitors. Some of the units and their balconies have been oriented towards Alexander Street to allow for passive surveillance. Large, dense plantings have been restricted to the residential boundaries of the site with low shrubs with less dense foliage being used along the street edge. The front fencing provided to allows visual surveillance of the street from terrace areas above and the straight edge of the fencing reduces opportunities for concealment.

 

The development meets the safety and security requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.12                 Parking

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to resident and visitor car parking and bicycle parking provision. 28 vehicle spaces including 5 visitor spaces and a carwash bay have been indicated on the plans. Bicycle parking for 8 spaces has also been provided. The driveway width and gradient proposed from Alexander Street meets Council’s requirements. The Director, Assets and Infrastructure has provided comments that the carparking provision is satisfactory.

 

In addition to the parking proposed to accommodate the development, the proposal will result in consolidation of three separate allotments that each have a separate driveway crossover. This has increased the on-street parking provision at the front of the site by 1 space, which will assist in meeting the existing parking demand in the area.

 

The development is considered to be satisfactory with regard to parking provision.

 

10  CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objections lodged with respect to the statutory non compliances generated by the maximum external wall and overall height and floor space ratio of the development are considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area, the objectives contained within the RLEP98 and the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The development proposes a building envelope, density and façade treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil these objectives.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the non-compliances with statutory and policy controls will not exacerbate impacts. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to vary the provisions of Clauses 33(4), 33(4) and 33(4)of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Demolition of 3 existing dwellings and construction of 3-4 storey residential flat building (19 dwellings) and basement carparking for 28 cars 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. 541/2003 for Demolition of 3 existing dwellings and construction of 3-4 storey residential flat building (19 dwellings) and basement carparking for 28 cars at 11-15 Alexander Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with Issue A of the plan DA 01, stamped received by Council on 30 June 2003 and Issue B of the plans numbered DA 02-DA 08, stamped received by Council on 7 October 2003, the landscape plan numbered project number 030005, and drawing number SK01B, dated 06/05/03 and stamped received by Council on 30/06/03, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The roof terrace, planter boxes and pergola structures to the top floor of apartment 15 are to be deleted in favour of a non-trafficable roof. The laundry area to this apartment is to be moved so that it is accessed from within the apartment and any doorways from the top floor study area to the roof are to be deleted from the plans. This condition is imposed to minimise the potential for noise impacts as a result of the proposal. Details required by this condition are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.         Fences located on the side or rear boundaries of the premises shall not exceed a maximum height of 1.8m, measured from the existing ground level on the subject site, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining premises. Details of proposed fencing are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

4.         Details submitted with the Construction Certificate application are to include the external lighting scheme (designed to the appropriate Australian Standard) proposed for the development. This condition is imposed to ensure the safety and security of the development.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

6.         There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

7.         Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

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

 

The following condition/s are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

9.         In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $27,490.82

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $12,155.08

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency:

 

10.       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.

 

11.       External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

12.       Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

13.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       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.

           

18.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

21.       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.

 

22.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises and the report is to detail any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

23.       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 demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status and condition 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.

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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:

 

27.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

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

 

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

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

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 and excavation in an approved manner; and

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

 

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

 

a) car parking and vehicular access

b) landscaping

c) stormwater drainage

d) external finishes and materials

 

33.       A coloured works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

35.       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.

 

36.       Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

37.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics/vibration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council upon commencement of works, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development complies with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority and relevant conditions of approval.  In support of the above it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

Should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

38.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

41.       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.

 

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

 

43.       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”.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       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.

 

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

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·      the slope of the land

·      site access points and access control measures

·      location and type of all sediment and erosion control measures

·      location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·      material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·      location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·      proposed disposal of site water

·      location of building operations and equipment

·      proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

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

 

48.       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.

 

49.       Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

50.       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.

 

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

 

51.       Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & 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 reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

52.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

53.       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 C2                      -       Compartmentation and separation

b)       Part D1                      -       Provisions for escape

c)       Clause D1.4               -       Exit travel distances

d)       Part D2                      -       Construction of exits

e)       Part D3                      -       Access for people with disabilities

f)        Part E1                       -       Fire fighting equipment

g)       Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

h)       Part E4                       -       Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning systems

i)        Part F1                       -       Damp and weatherproofing

j)        Part F2                       -       Sanitary and other facilities

k)       Part F5                       -       Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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.

 

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

 

54.       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)         $9,000.00        -           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 and associated civil works by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

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

 

a)   Construct a concrete heavy-duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b)   Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)   Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

d)   Carry out a full depth, minimum 2 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

e)   Reconstruct a concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

f)    To either upgrade the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street or extend Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage. This depends on the stormwater discharge option taken by the applicant, see drainage conditions.

 

56.       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.

 

57.       An approval under the Roads Act 1993 is required to be obtained from Council in relation to all drainage and infrastructure works which are located within the roadway/public place. Details of the proposed works are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Assert and Infrastructure Services prior to commencing such work. Council is to be nominated as the principal certifying authority in respect of those works.

 

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

 

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

 

60.       The driveway opening at the Alexander Street frontage must be 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

61.       The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

62.       A work zone is to be provided in Alexander Street for the duration of the construction works. The ‘workzone’ shall have a minimum length of 12 metres and the prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

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

 

63.       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 Council footpath level at all points along the Alexander Street frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

64.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level)  issued by Council and their relationship to 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.

 

65.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $963.00.00 calculated at $17.60 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

66.       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.

 

67.       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.

 

68.       Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

69.       Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

70.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

71.       Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a  Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

h)         All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

 

72.       All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property.

 

73.       The applicant will have the option of limiting the stormwater discharge from the site so it will not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm and upgrading the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street.

 

OR

 

Extending Council’s stormwater line from the Council stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street to the development site frontage.

 

All future Council stormwater pipelines shall be constructed with a spigot and socket, rubber ringed steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Other pipelines maybe considered however the selected pipeline must have a minimum equivalent or superior qualities to that of the RRRCP. Such qualities shall include (but not limited to):-

 

-                   Life expectancy minimum 80 years (including abrasion wear)

-                   Vehicular loadings.

-                   resistance to chemical or  biological attack.

-                   hydraulic capacity

 

Notes

 

-        Prior to backfill, the pipeline shall be inspected and approved by the Director Assert and Infrastructure Services.

-        The minimum internal diameter for a future Council stormwater pipeline shall be 375 mm.

-        Generally backfill material for the pipeline trench shall be:-

 

§ clean sand.

§ watered in.

§ compacted in 150 mm layers with a minimum 97% relative compaction.

 

All standard extended kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD 3. Minimum concrete strength of 32 Mpa.

 

Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate the applicant is to advise Council’s drainage engineer in writing of the chosen option of stormwater discharge as mentioned above.

 

The following 7 (seven) conditions shall only apply should the applicant choose to limiting the stormwater discharge from the site so it will not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm and upgrade the inlet capacity of Council’s stormwater gully pit at the intersection of Alexander Street and Dudley Street.

 

74.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

75.       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.

 

76.       The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

77.       The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

78.       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).

 

79.       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.

 

80.       A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, and approved by an accredited certifier, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the location of the detention basin with finished surface levels, contours at 0.2 metre intervals and volume of storage available.  The outlet pipe from the detention basin to its connection with Council's drainage system, must be indicated on this plan in conjunction with the following information:

 

a)         location

b)         pipe diameter

c)         gradient

d)         pipe material ie PVC or EW etc

e)         orifice size (if applicable)

 

81.       A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

82.       A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

1         within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

2         prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:-

 

·    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

·    The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·    The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·    A galvanised heavy-duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipe. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

·    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system for the access grate (e.g. similar to a Weldlock spring loaded jay-bolt).

 

·    The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

“This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit can be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

83.       A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

84.       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.

 

85.       Two covered car-washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

c)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

86.       All drainage details for the site shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans.

 

87.       As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofed has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

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

 

88.       Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

89.       The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

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

 

90.       The landscaped areas shown on the landscape plan number SK01B, dated 06.05.03, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f.    The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species, that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA)  prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

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

 

93.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

94.       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.

 

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

 

96.       All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

97.       The applicant shall submit a total payment of $283.80 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 3 x 25 litre street trees at the completion of all works ($258.00 + GST), and

 

The contribution shall be paid into Fee Code 525 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

98.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 3 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site and 5 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) along the rear boundary of the site. The species selected shall be one/those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)   Five (5) Ailanthus species (Tree of Heaven) located within the rear yard of No.15 Alexander Street, close to the rear boundary.

 

b)   One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the front yard of No.15 Alexander Street.

 

c)   One (1) Chamaecyparis species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of No.15 Alexander Street, close to the southern boundary.

 

d)   One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of No.11 Alexander Street, close to the rear boundary.

 

e)   One (1) Cupressus species (Cypress Pine) located within the rear yard of No.11 Alexander Street, close to the southern boundary.

 

f)    Two (2) Morus species (Mulberry Trees) located within the front yard of No.11 Alexander Street, close to the northern boundary.

 

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

 

100.     In order to ensure the retention of the one (1) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) located within the adjoining property to the rear of No.11 Alexander Street, the one (1) Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted Gum) and the (1) Banksia serrata (Old Man Banksia) located within Council’s nature strip, in front of No.11 Alexander Street 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.         Detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show no alteration in the existing soil levels or cutting or battering of the existing soil profile, or any excavations within a radius of  4.5 metres from the rear boundary of No.11 Alexander Street.

 

c.         The Spotted Gum and Old Man Banksia trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective  fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1 metre from the outside edge of 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.

 

d.         Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

e.         Watering of the trees (within the fenced off areas) three times a week for the duration of the construction period.

 

f.          The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

g.         A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $9,260.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the  preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

   QUANTITY

 

        SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

1

 

Araucaria heterophylla

(Norfolk Island Pine)

 

$6,730.00

 

1

 

Eucalyptus maculata

(Spotted Gum)

 

$2,530.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$9,260.00

 

The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the trees have been retained in good health.

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

101.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $10,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1       In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl.GST) and that this amount  shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

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

 

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.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 84/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

21 October, 2003

FILE NO:

708/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No 708/2003 for refurbishments, alterations and additions to existing residential college, including additional residential level, student resource and recreation rooms and BCA upgrade.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 25 August, 2003

2. A5 reduced plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D 0708/2003/GR

 

PROPOSAL:

 Refurbishment, alterations and additions to existing residential college, including additional accommodation level, student resource and recreation rooms and BCA upgrade

PROPERTY:

 New College, 330 Anzac Parade Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Professor T. Cairney

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $ 5,016,000.

 

The applicant is seeking approval for a major upgrade to the New College student accommodation building at the University of NSW, including a new lift, courtyard refurbishment and an additional student accommodation level. The building entry will also be upgraded as part of the works. The site is covered by the approved Master Plan for the University of NSW, Kensington Campus.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed upgrade of New College aims to refurbish student accommodation, amenities and rooms within the existing four storey courtyard building form and also proposes an additional accommodation level.

 

The ground floor will include an upgrade to entry points from Anzac Parade and from within the campus, including new cantilevered awnings, a new lift, refurbished common room, music room, store and administrative offices, refurbished staff accommodation (2 dwellings). A new meeting room and refurbished, enlarged student resource room will also be included in the ground floor level.

 

The existing student accommodation at first and second floor level will be refurbished to accommodate 66 beds at each level, a reduction of 12 beds from the existing provision. Bathrooms and common areas on these levels will also be refurbished. The major change at first floor level will be a new recreation room, located to the centre of the existing uncovered courtyard. The recreation room will have an area of 106.8m2 and its location results in two, smaller northern and southern courtyard spaces each having an area of 242m2. External stairs at the eastern and western ends of the recreation room provide access to a roof terrace and pergola structure on top of the recreation room (at Level 2). The roof terrace provides a link across the courtyard between the eastern and western wings of the building at second floor level.

 

The existing accommodation at third floor level will be refurbished to provide 66 beds (a reduction of 5 beds from the existing provision). A 1.3 metre wide bridge is proposed to span across the courtyard, between the stairs in the eastern and western wings at this level.

 

A new fourth floor level (having an area of 1,401m2) is proposed providing student accommodation comprising 37 beds, two meeting rooms and four common rooms. Two laundries are also proposed to this level. Four of the bathrooms on this level are proposed to be accessible to ensure all students have equitable access to the accommodation. Rooms on this level are slightly larger than on existing lower levels, resulting in less bedspaces being provided within a similar building footprint.

 

The refurbishment will result in a total of 241 bedspaces in the building, an increase of 20 spaces on the existing provision.

 

As part of the upgrade a new accessible car space will be provided on the eastern (University) side of the college, close to the building entry.

The exterior of the building will be modified to update its appearance from Anzac Parade and from within the Kensington campus. These changes are largely focussed on the building entries to the east and west which will incorporate new glazed awnings over the entrance way. A 7.5 metre wide section of the eastern and western facades (comprising the foyer and stairs to each level) above the entry will be glazed to further highlight the building entries. At ground level, sections of the existing colonnade to the east, west and south will be filled in with glazing to extend the student resources room, music and maintenance rooms and administrative offices of the College. Additional glazing to the third and fourth floor levels will be incorporated into the northern and southern facades to improve natural light to these areas and integrate the addition into the existing structure.

The walls of the proposed additional floor will be clad in pre-finished panels with glazed windows arranged in a pattern consistent with the existing building. The new roof has been modulated to highlight the building entries and reflect increased areas of glazing, with skillion profiles proposed at the centre of each of the four wings.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western boundary of the lower Kensington Campus of the University of New South Wales, one allotment to the north of Barker Street in Kensington.

 

The site is a rectangular shaped allotment within the University campus with a total site area of approximately 2,600m². The site is generally flat and is currently occupied by a four storey residential college. A large, uncovered courtyard exists at level 1 of the existing building and dictates the form of the upper levels of the building.

 

Approximately 10 metres to the south of the site is Warrane College (a residential college of 6 storeys). Approximately 20-30m north of the site is a Grounds Depot. To the east of the site are tennis courts and an oval that form part of the University campus. The site’s western boundary adjoins Anzac Parade. Across Anzac Parade, is the University’s L5 site, which is currently under construction for an 4-7 storey educational building. Two and three storey residential flat buildings adjoin the L5 site and are opposite the subject site to the northwest and northeast.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with Council and the applicant on 9 July 2003. No major issues were raised with the development concept at that meeting however several suggestions relating to solar access and amenity were raised with the applicant. Suggestions included incorporation of balconies and modulation of the roof form to minimise solar gain from the western sun.

 

The current application was lodged with Council on 11 August 2003.

 

b. HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The subject site is currently used for student accommodation with communal kitchen and dining areas and shared bathrooms. This use has occurred on the site since 1967. Prior to this, a portion of the site was used as the old racecourse and a portion was vacant land reserved for railway uses. There is no further history relevant to the subject site for this application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. In response, no submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1.      Director of Assets & Infrastructure

 

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

 

An application has been received for alterations, additions and refurbishment of New College, on the grounds of the University of New South Wales, at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Traffic Comments

The proposed development will attract an additional 18 students and 1 staff member to the site. It is understood that the college is designed to provide accommodation for university students and a Dean-in-Residence.

 

Only 1 additional parking space (for disabled access) has been proposed in this application.  The applicant states that the two additional spaces required could be accommodated within the existing parking facilities on-site.

 

Neither Council’s Parking Code nor the RTA’s guide to traffic generating developments addresses this specific type of land use category. Thus the required parking demands should be determined based on a traffic generation survey of similar developments.  The applicant states that car ownership of students residing in university accommodation is low, at 1 in 22 students. However it is noted that the figures quoted in the survey do not appear to make allowance for visitors to park on-site. 

 

The EPCD Department is to determine whether the parking deficit is acceptable for the proposed land use activity.

 

As a portion of the units are to be designed with provision for disabled access, the EPCD Department is to ensure that adequate provision is made for disabled parking.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

The condition imposed by the AIS have been included in the recommendation  (see Condition 11). Discussion of the parking impacts of the proposal is included under Section 9.4.

 

6.2.      Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comment in relation to the application:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the addition of an additional storey of accommodation to the building.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§   Class 3            -Place of Shared Accommodation

§   Class 2 and 5  -Ground floor staff accommodation and offices

Background

 

Existing 4 Storey student accommodation with offices and auxiliary rooms at ground floor level including a staff accommodation

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management: No details provided.

Standard conditions have been included in the consent to address a range of construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

A consultants report has been submitted with the DA. Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:

A submission has been made in relation to access for persons with disabilities and suitable conditions have been included in this regard.

 

Conclusion:

No objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Conditions recommended by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the recommendation (see Conditions 12-36).

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site forms part of the UNSW Kensington Campus, which has a total area in excess of 38 hectares and is subject to a master plan.

 

The Master Plan for the UNSW Kensington Campus was approved subject to revisions on 13 August 2002. Revisions to the Master Plan have not yet been received by Council. The revisions required building envelopes be provided for sites, particularly where they adjoin public streets or private land. Despite the requested details not being provided as yet, the increase in on-campus student accommodation and the additional level proposed to the College were highlighted in the Master Plan. The Master Plan as originally submitted remains a relevant policy document for consideration in this assessment and discussion has been included under section 9.2 of this report. As part of the recommendation it is requested that the Master Plan revisions be prepared and submitted to Council prior to the consideration of any subsequent Development Applications for the Kensington Campus.

 

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 5 Special Uses under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed use of the site for educational purposes (including accommodation for staff and students) is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32(5) - Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1 for boarding houses/ multi-unit housing in Zone 5

Development is defined in LEP as educational establishment

N/A

37A - Development in Special Uses Zone

Council may only grant consent if satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

As per discussion below in section 9.1.

Yes

 

(b)   SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated when determining development applications. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous longstanding use of the site for residential purposes would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

Council has fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

(c)   SEPP 16 – Tertiary Institutions

 

SEPP 16 allows tertiary institutions of any class to be constructed on land zoned for a particular class of tertiary institution. The subject site is zoned 5 Special Uses. Educational uses regardless of their “class” are allowed in the zone with consent. Therefore no further consideration of the SEPP is required.

 

(d)   SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

SEPP 65 applies to residential flat buildings, being buildings that are:

 

(a)        3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level provided for car parking or storage, or both, that protrude less than 1.2 metres above ground level), and

(b)  4 or more self-contained dwellings (whether or not the building includes uses for other purposes, such as shops),

 

The residential rooms of the college are not self-contained dwellings and therefore no further consideration of the SEPP is required.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.       University of NSW Kensington Campus Master Plan, 2002

 

Relevant sections of the Master Plan are considered under Section 9.2 of this report.

8.2  Council Policies

 

a.       DCP – Parking

b.       Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

(a)        DCP - Parking

 

The DCP – Parking requires that tertiary institutions provide parking at the rate of 0.7 spaces per staff member, plus 1 space per 10 full-time students. There is no specific provision for on-campus accommodation. Parking has been discussed in detail under Section 9.4.

 

(b)        Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan requires contributions for residential buildings, but not hostels, boarding houses or tourist accommodation. The proposal falls under Class 3 of the BCA, which includes buildings for transient accommodation. The College does not provide self-contained accommodation that could reasonably be described as additional ‘dwellings’, as facilities such as bathrooms and kitchens are shared. No Section 94 Contribution has been levied for the additional accommodation level proposed.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998

 

The proposal meets the objectives of the Special Uses zone, which include enabling development ancillary and associated with the primarily educational use of the site. The proposal will contribute to university uses on the site without significant adverse impact on uses in adjacent zonings.

 

Clause 37A of the Randwick LEP requires Council to be satisfied that development in the Special Uses zone is “compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development”, prior to granting any development consent.

 

The development will provide improved and additional university facilities on the site without significant impact on adjacent residential uses (Warrane College), nearby recreational and educational uses or residential uses to the northwest and northeast. The bulk and scale of the proposal is consistent with development in the vicinity and the improvements to the exterior of the building will enhance the presentation of the building to Anzac Parade.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to relevant clauses of the RLEP98.

 

9.2   UNSW Master Plan

 

The Kensington Campus Master Plan was adopted by Council in August, subject to revisions relating to provision of building envelope controls. These revisions have not yet been received, however an assessment of the proposal against the objectives in the Plan can still be made and has been included below.

 

Student Housing

 

The Master Plan outlined development of the Campus over 5 and 10 year timeframes. Under Section 4.3, Student Housing, the refurbishment of New College was highlighted as a five-year priority. The Master Plan also noted a study conducted in 1998 which identified New College as being able to accommodate an additional floor level to improve student facilities and increase the quantity of student accommodation. Section 4.3 noted that student housing (both on and off campus) was under supplied (by approximately 500 beds) and that student expectations of accommodation were increasing. The provision of on-campus accommodation was linked to benefits such as reduction of travel distances to campus and support of local businesses. The refurbishment and extension of the New College is consistent with the Master Plan and will provide the additional floor space required in a location that has been highlighted as appropriate.

 

In addition to specific requirements for various campus activities, the Master Plan provided general objectives for all future development. Relevant objectives are addressed under the related Master Plan headings below:

 

Future Considerations

 

Built Form

 

The built form objectives include that:

 

§   Building setbacks, design, height and scale on the campus perimeter are sensitive to adjacent buildings and the streetscape and minimise the impact on the privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties

 

The additional level proposed to the top of the existing building will not result in significant adverse impacts on adjacent buildings nor on the streetscape of Anzac Parade. The additional floor is setback and is constructed of lightweight materials that reduce its visual bulk.

 

§ Colours and materials follow a consistent palette that complements existing buildings

 

Glazing, wall cladding and roofing are proposed in neutral colours which will blend with the existing building. An increased use of glass will lighten the existing façade and provide a more vibrant elevation at night time.

 

§ Building façades are articulated to the human scale in form and detail

 

Changes proposed to the façade use lightweight framing to glazing to improve detailing and increase the elements that provide human scale to the façade.

 

§ North facing rooms are used for communal activities

 

The additional level of the building provides meeting rooms on the northern side of the building, increasing the provision of solar access to communal areas within the building.

 

§ Where possible, interaction takes place between the inside and outside of buildings and pleasant outlooks are provided

 

The proposed courtyard form of the additional level will maximise opportunities for outlook to rooms. The new recreation room at first floor level, roof terrace and bridge will improve the relationship between internal and external spaces of the building and between the eastern and western wings of the building.

 

§ Where they are overlooked, rooftops are designed or redesigned to provide a pleasant view

 

The new roof form is modulated to provide visual interest and reduce its scale.

 

§ Buildings are designed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards for Accessibility

 

The upgrade to the building will include six accessible units being provided, a new lift to all levels and provision of an additional accessible parking space outside the building.

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the building are consistent with the built form objectives contained within the master plan.

 

Energy Efficiency

 

The Master Plan listed the following objectives and requirements for energy efficiency:

 

§   The quantity of materials used in construction is kept to a minimum

 

The proposal has been designed to accommodate additional student accommodation while minimising the need for demolition and reconstruction using new materials.

 

§ Low embodied energy materials are used in construction whenever practicable

§ Recycled materials, products and other modular components are used wherever practicable

§ Durable, long-life materials and components are used wherever practicable

 

Alterations and additions proposed use durable, long life materials prefabricated into modular components.

 

§ Buildings are thermally efficient as possible and air conditioning is minimised.

 

The proposed new roof form incorporates large overhangs to the west and has a profile that maximises eastern light to rooms. All windows to rooms allow for natural ventilation and energy efficient lighting systems will be employed where possible. The walls and roof will be well-insulated. Windows to rooms have been maximised to allow for optimum levels of natural light and ventilation.

 

§ Travel demand management practices encourage the use of sustainable travel modes such as public transport, cycling and walking.

 

The increase in on-campus accommodation will reduce the need for long trips to and from the campus and will encourage walking and cycling on campus. The provision of safe bicycle storage will be required to ensure this objective is met. This has been included as a condition of consent (see Condition 2).

 

Regional and Local Access

 

The Master Plan aims to increase use of sustainable modes of transport such as cycling and walking and to reduce reliance on private motor transport.

 

In particular outcomes are stated as:

§ The overall modal split for students and staff in favour of public transport, cycling and walking is increased to 80%:20% to further reduce car use and the demand for parking

§ Student housing is provided on campus or in close proximity to it, so as to better manage travel demand, encourage the use of sustainable travel modes and reduce the demand for parking.

 

The proposal will not significantly increase demand for parking on the site. Bicycle parking has not been indicated on the submitted plans. It is considered that secure bike storage facilities to allow residents to store their bikes overnight should be provided to encourage use of bicycles on campus. This has been imposed as a condition of consent. The location of additional student housing on campus should reduce the need for long trips to the campus and reduce the requirement for parking in accordance with the Master Plan.

 

The Public Domain

 

One of the main issues raised by the Master Plan was the public domain and in particular access, the existing amenity provided to pedestrians, streetscape and the identity of the “University precinct” including areas on the periphery of the main Kensington campus. The Master Plan made the following observations:

 

§  Anzac Parade requires significant improvement in terms of urban design and development along its length. Matters requiring attention include:

-     Poor landscaping

-     Poor pedestrian amenity and safety

-     In relation to Anzac Parade: Urban design and identity issues as well as those of amenity and safety need to be addressed. For example streetscape improvements could include wider footpaths, better lighting and street furniture treatments to enhance the boulevard character of the street

 

The western boundary of the site adjoins Anzac Parade. The proposed improvements to the western elevation clearly highlight the entry to the College from Anzac Parade (by providing a glazed section of increased height above the entry) and provide awnings to the main entrance from Anzac Parade. The proposed ground floor changes also highlight the entrance to the administrative offices on ground floor and improve surveillance through an increased use of glazing. The proposed improvements to the building will enhance the appearance of the site from the public domain and will highlight the building and University uses to the street in accordance with Master Plan objectives.

 

The proposal is consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

 

9.3   Impacts on the locality

 

Density

 

The development will increase the gross floor area on the site by 1,697m2 (to a total of 8,194m2 and will increase the accommodation provided by 20 beds.

 

The additional floor level proposed will not significantly increase the bulk and scale of the building and will not result in significant overshadowing or visual privacy impacts on surrounding residential and recreational uses. The accommodation of additional students on site should not result in a significantly increased demand for services. The accommodation of students on the site will complement and support existing University uses.

 

Notwithstanding that there is no FSR standard on the site, the proposal meets the objectives of density controls which is to establish reasonable upper limits on development in order to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding development. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to density.

 

Privacy

 

To the north, east and west of the site there are no residential buildings in close proximity to the site.

 

To the south of the site is Warrane College. This building is 10 metres from New College. Council’s residential DCPs, consider that 10m of horizontal separation is sufficient to maintain visual privacy between buildings. The proposal meets this criteria and will not result in visual privacy impacts to Warrane College.

 

The open area of the central courtyard will be reduced by the proposal. The location of recreational areas to the centre of the building will minimise noise impacts on surrounding uses.

 

Overshadowing

 

The additional height of the proposal will not result in significant additional overshadowing to surrounding properties. The orientation of the site results in shadows that move significantly throughout the day. During midwinter mornings additional shadow will be cast on the footpath and ground floor of properties across Anzac Parade to the west. By midday, shadows are cast on the northern façade of Warrane College. During midwinter afternoons additional shadows are cast on the tennis courts to the east of the site, Warrane College will also be shaded at 3pm, as occurs currently.

 

The additional shadow generated by the proposal will not exacerbate existing overshadowing which is a result of the orientation of the site and existing buildings. Additional shadows during the equinox periods will not affect the adjoining college building, indicating that the additional impact of the proposal is limited to the midwinter period. The open spaces to the east of the building will achieve approximately 4 hours of excellent solar access per day midwinter, which is as per the existing situation.

 

The courtyard building form provides good solar access to rooms in the northern and southern wings of the building. Increased glazing to the new floor level achieves good solar access to east facing rooms and west facing rooms (which are protected by deep overhangs). The southern courtyard will receive midday sun during the midwinter period, providing a protected outdoor area with good amenity for residents.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access.

 

Social Impacts

 

The proposed on-campus accommodation will result in a minor increase in the number of students in the local areas outside regular campus hours. This increase may contribute to the vitality of the Kingsford and Kensington Commercial Centres and should improve security and surveillance within these areas.

 

Proposed improvements to the building such as increased links between eastern and western wings and increased student resource and recreation rooms will improve the opportunities for social interactions within the college. The increase in on-campus accommodation will increase opportunities for students to live closer to University facilities, increasing their ability to take part in extra curricular activities and take advantage of University services, such as the library, gymnasium etc.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to social impacts.

 

Safety and security

 

The proposal will be secured as per the management requirements of UNSW. Main access to the building will be from the east and west. Increased lighting to these entranceways will make them more inviting and improve safety in the area.

 

The increased glazing to the façade of the building allows surveillance of the footpath of Anzac Parade and the Campus from building. The increased student population residing on campus should increase the numbers of people in the area 24 hours a day.

 

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to safety and security.

 

9.4   Traffic and Parking

 

The existing building utilises campus-wide parking through the University’s permit scheme. 9 College managed spaces plus 2 spaces for loading are also available. The proposal requires parking for 239 full-time students and parking for 16 staff members. Under the DCP – Parking this would require 24 student spaces and 11 staff spaces. The existing building generates a requirement of 22 student spaces and 11 staff spaces. The proposal represents an increased parking demand of 2 spaces. An additional accessible parking space is proposed as part of the development.

 

Students residing at the College are eligible to participate in the UNSW permit parking scheme. As students, they have already been included in calculations for projected parking requirements for the Campus as a whole. The additional 2 student spaces generated by the proposal can be accommodated in the existing on-site provision and carpark expansions planned under the approved Master Plan. Increased on-campus accommodation will reduce the need for students to travel by car to the Campus each day and may result in reduced parking requirements. The applicant has provided details that current car ownership amongst students is 1 per 22 students. This rate is half that used to calculate parking under Council’s DCP. The proposal will not have a significant impact on traffic and parking at the Campus.

 

Under the DCP – Parking, 2% of all spaces provided should be accessible. The proposal provides one accessible parking space. As the number of spaces provided is difficult to ascertain for this development, due to the reliance on campus-wide parking, the required parking has been used to calculate accessible parking requirements. 35 spaces are required for the development, generating an accessible requirement of 0.7 spaces. The proposed provision of 1 space is adequate for the proposal and is located conveniently to the building entry and lift.

 

The DCP – Parking contains a requirement for bicycle parking facilities for educational establishments of one bicycle space per 10 car spaces (4 spaces for this development). Given the residential use of this particular site, the low rates of student car ownership and the objective of promoting bicycle usage contained within the UNSW Master Plan it is considered that a greater rate of bicycle parking should be applied to the development. The rate for multi-unit housing is 1 space per 3 units plus one visitor per 10 units. There are 59 ‘rooms’ within the proposal. These may be considered as ‘units’ and generate a requirement of 20 spaces. Six visitor spaces would also be required under the DCP provision. In order to encourage greater use of bicycles and to ensure adequate, secure bicycle storage for residents, a condition has been applied requiring 25 bicycle spaces be provided in a convenient, secure location at ground level within the building and are to be signposted from the main entrance as per Condition 2.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to DCP – Parking.

 

9.5   The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site was indicated for redevelopment in the recently adopted UNSW Master Plan. The redevelopment of the site for improved residential facilities is consistent with the Special Uses zone and has excellent access to public transport and the facilities and infrastructure available on the main campus. The proposal has limited the impact of additional accommodation on surrounding sites and the appearance of the site from Anzac Parade and within the campus.

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

9.6   The public interest

 

The provision of additional student housing in the proposed location will not adversely affect existing residential uses in the area. An additional student population at the western periphery of the University Campus will provide support for the existing shopping strip at Kingsford. The proposal will not result in significant impacts on surrounding properties. The development is considered to be in the public interest.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area and the objectives contained within the RLEP98 and UNSW Master Plan for the Kensington Campus. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council advise the University of NSW in writing that revisions to the approved Master Plan should be received prior to any more Development Applications being lodged for the Kensington Campus.

 

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 708/2003 for Refurbishment, alterations and additions to the existing residential college, including an additional accommodation level, student resource and recreation rooms and BCA upgrade at New College, 330 Anzac Parade Kensington subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by PMDL Architecture + Design numbered project number 973 and drawing numbers DA111-DA116, DA201-203 and DA301, and stamped received by Council on 11 August 2003, sample board numbered DA – 100 of project number 973 dated 08/08/03, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.   Twenty-Five (25) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in a secure and convenient location, nearby the entry to the building for the use of building occupants and visitors. Clear signage is to be provided indicating the location of the spaces from the front entry.

 

The bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the guidelines in Council’s DCP – Parking. Details of the bicycle parking are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.   Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

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

 

5.   There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

6.   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 should be obtained.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

7.   The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.

 

8.   External timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturers details.

 

9.   Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

10. Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14. A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

15. A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

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

 

16. 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.

 

17. The building works are to be inspected by a suitably qualified person, 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 are to be maintained.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

18. A works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

19. A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate is to be forwarded to Council, detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

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

 

20. Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

21. 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.

 

22. 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.

 

23. 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.

 

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

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

25. 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.

 

26. 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.

 

27. 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”.

 

28. Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council 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.

 

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

 

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

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

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

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

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

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

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

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

30. Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

31. 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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

33. 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.

 

34. A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·          any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·          any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

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

 

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

 

35. The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to commencement of works.

 

The following condition is applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

36. Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the building in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards. Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certification.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.      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 B1        -         Structural provisions

b)     Part D1        -         Provisions for escape

c)     Part D3        -         Access for people with disabilities

d)     Part E1         -         Fire fighting equipment

e)     Part E2         -         Smoke Hazard Management

f)      Part E4         -         Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 August, 2003

2. A5 reduced plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

L.OZOG

RACHEL AITKEN

A/DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 85/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

La Perouse Koori Project

 

 

DATE:

23 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5129

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The La Perouse Koori Cricket Project which is a joint initiative of Cricket NSW,  NSW Tourism,  Department of Sport and Recreation and the Yarra Bay Cricket Club has requested that Council waive the rental fees associated with hiring Woomera Reserve.

 

ISSUES:

 

The La Perouse Koori Cricket Project is aimed at fostering the growth of cricket within the La Perouse Indigenous community.

 

The Program will run during the cricket session from 4.00pm to 6.00pm on Friday afternoons in Woomera Reserve, Little Bay.

 

The Program aims to establish a cricket program for children aged 5-8 years and the formation of  under 10s and 12s cricket teams.

 

The Program is also sponsored by Milo, who provides cricket equipment for the young participants.

 

The Program will operate over 10 weeks and the Oval hiring fees over the 10 weeks period will be $1,500 ($150 per week)

 

Funds associated with the waiving of these fees are available through the Councillors Donation Vote for 2003/2004.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The La Perouse Koori Cricket Project is the first of its kind in Sydney and the support Council will provide will enhance our relationship with the La Perouse Aboriginal community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.         That Council vote $1,500 to cover the rental fee for Woomera Reserve, Little Bay, be allocated from the Councillors’ Donation Vote for 2003/2004.

2.         That Council’s contribution to the La Perouse Koori Cricket Project be appropriately publicised.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHELLE LEWENKOPF

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATOR

community development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 86/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Moverly Children's Centre Fee Increase

 

 

DATE:

23 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0085 Part 3

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Moverly Children’s Centre was established in 1994 with the philosophy of providing affordable and accessible child care for residents of Randwick. Salaries represent 90% of Moverly’s operational budget.

 

As outlined in the Centre’s Fee Policy, fees at Moverly Children’s Centre are reviewed annually to reflect cost increases and to ensure a cost recovery basis at the Centre.

 

Moverly Children’s Centre is licensed to care for 39 children aged 0 to 5 years per day. The facility was built using Section 94 funds and has been managed by Randwick City Council.  Council provides subsidies towards salary of an employee with a disability, insurance, maintenance, water, waste and council rates ($19,900). The Centre has an excellent reputation within the Randwick Local Government Area for its high quality care to children. Through the Parents Advisory Committee, parents of children attending Moverly are actively involved in fundraising activities and decision making at the centre.

 

Moverly’s only sources of re-current funding are fees (user pays from parents), Child Care Benefit (from Centrelink which is determined by income of family unit) and Council’s subsidy, which is budgeted for $19,979 this financial year.

 

ISSUES:

 

Fees at Moverly are currently $48 per day for children in the Nursery Room, and $46 per day for children in the Pre-School Room, with this last increase occurring in January 2003.

 

The previous increase in fees occurred in January 2002 and was $45 for children in the Nursery and $43 for children in the Pre-School Room.

 

Following a consultation with a number of child care centres across the Randwick Local Government Area, Moverly’s fees are currently in the low range, for community based child care centres and are more affordable than private child care centres.

The current range of costing for child care places for the Nursery Room (0-2 year olds) is $48 per day to $72 per day.

 

For the Pre-School Room (3-5 years olds) the cost is from $45 per day to $56 per day.

 

With the introduction in 2000, of the Child Care Benefit the Federal Government provides subsidies to families utilising child care services, which is based on individual family incomes and number of dependent children. There are a significant number of families at Moverly, that are eligible for the Child Care Benefit and access this scheme.  However, they are only eligible for the minimum benefit because of their income level.

 

In order to continue to provide a quality service and for the Centre to remain viable, it is necessary to increase the Centre’s fees and to review the Centre’s operations.

 

Discussions held with other Child Care Service Providers across the Randwick Local Government Area, has also indicated that most Centres will be increasing their fees, as of the beginning of 2004.

 

It was also identified that most of the Centres have a refundable Enrolment Bond of either $200, or the equivalent of two weeks fees.

 

Currently Moverly requires a refundable Enrolment Bond of $100.

 

However, should someone not accept their reserved place, the refundable Enrolment Bond of $100 is not adequate to cover a week’s loss of income for the Centre.

 

It is therefore proposed that the refundable Enrolment Bond be increased to $200.

 

Recently the Co-ordinator Community Development and the Director of Moverly Children’s Centre attended a Parent Advisory Committee to discuss with the parents the need to review the Centre’s operations and fee structure.

 

The parents agreed in principle that the fees needed to increase, however they requested that a review be undertaken of the Centre’s current operations.

 

It was agreed that Council will investigate:-

 

·    employing a trainee child care worker to reduce the costs associated with employing casual relief staff, who are utilised to assist in relieving for rostered days off and planning days;  

 

·    reviewing the Centre’s day to day operations, in order to meet the growing demand for under 3 year old child care places;

 

·    absorbing the public holiday fees into the daily fee; and

 

·    reviewing the fee increases to coincide with the development of Council’s financial year budget.

 

After further investigation by the Co-ordinator Community Development and the Director, Moverly Children’s Centre it is proposed that Council increase the daily fees by $4 for the Nursery from $48 to $52 per day, and increase the daily fee for the

Pre-School Room by $3 from $46 to $49 per day.

 

Included in the fee increase is the absorption of the 6 public holidays.

 

At the meeting the parents were very supportive of the need to ensure the quality of  child care continue at Moverly.

 

A follow-up letter will be sent to all parents explaining that a fee increase of $4 per  day for the Nursery Room and an increase of $3 per day for the pre-School Room was suggested for reasons as outlined in this report.

 

If necessary a further meeting with parents will be held to discuss the fee increase and the Centre’s operational review.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is recommended that a fee increase of $4 per day for the Nursery and an increase of $3 per day for the Pre-School Room be proposed.

 

It is further recommended that the Centre’s refundable Bond be increased to $200.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council place the proposed 2004 fee structure on Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days and consider any submissions prior to implementation of the proposed new fees;

2.         That, in the event that no public submissions are received, the fees at the Moverly Children’s Centre increase to $49 per day for children in the

            Pre-School Room and to $52 per day for children in the Nursery. 

3.         That families will no longer be required to pay for public holidays.

4.         The refundable enrolment bond be increased to $200.

5.         All increases to take effect from the Centre’s re-opening on 8th January 2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHELLE LEWENKOPF

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATOR

community development

 

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor Matthews – Poker Machine Tax.  (98/S/5279 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council write to the Premier and Member for Maroubra Bob Carr to seek his support in non-implementation of the proposed Poker Machines Tax in our Clubs.

 

11.2     By Councillor Matthews – Safety on Buses.  (98/S/0959 xr 98/S/0178)

 

Due to the continued bad publicity on Government buses operating in the South Maroubra and La Perouse areas, that this Council write to the Premier and Member for Maroubra, Bob Carr, to ask for his support from his Government to have guards on buses for the safety of passengers and bus drivers in these areas.

 

11.3          By Councillor Schick – Private Accredited Certifiers.  (98/S/0369 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, as a matter of urgency, a report be prepared for Council outlining the responsibility of Private Accredited Certifyers (PAC) and whether inspections are carried out in accordance with State Government regulations, and to Council’s satisfaction, as per approved D.A. conditions.

 

11.4          By Councillor Whitehead –Liquor Accord.  (98/S/0854 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Randwick City Council responds to the applauded Alcohol Summit initiated by the N.S.W. State Government in August 2003 by:-

 

a)      Reviewing its Liquor Accord with the purpose of evaluating its success in minimising alcohol abuse and the problems that flow from it;

b)      Undertaking a comprehensive community consultation as part of this process to determine positive and negative aspects of its implementation and to reveal possible areas where improvements can be made; and

c)      Reporting its findings to the community by the end of February 2004.

 

 

11.5          By Councillor Matson – Claims of Bussing of Clovelly Hotel Patrons to the Beach Palace.  (D/0539/2001 xr D/0785/1998 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager contact the management of the Beach Palace Hotel asking them to comment on claims that they have been reported as identifying the Clovelly Hotel as employing the practice of bussing patrons to the Beach Palace.  Further, that a report comes back to the next Council Meeting.

 

11.6          By Councillor Matson – Verification of Claims on Asbestos Soil Sampling at Bundock Street.  (98/S/1648 xr D/0063/2003 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager contact the Department of Defence over the Southern Courier article of the 21st October titled “Defence Dept under attack” and request:

 

a)                  An explanation of the methodology used to take the “600 soil samples and 1100 air-monitoring samples” referred to in the article;

b)                  The results of the 600 soil samples and the number of “hot spots” of buried asbestos or other contamination detected and removed;

c)                  That detected hot spots be specifically differentiated as to whether they contained asbestos fragments or respirable asbestos fibres; and

d)                  An assurance that the methodology used is sufficient for the site auditor to verify in a site audit certificate that no hot spots of buried asbestos or other contamination now remain.

 

11.7          By Councillor Matson – Review of Aggressive – Rooted Street Tree Strategy.  (98/S/4689xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council notes the degree of concern that the Aggressive – Rooted Street Tree Strategy is causing in those streets characterized by extensive canopy coverage.  That, further, Council will suspend all removals planned under its resolution of the 26th November, 2002 in order to undertake a re-assessment of the objectives of the removal program and the 10 year time in which it is to be implemented.

 

11.8          By Councillor Matson – Council Supported Reforms to Pokie Machines.  (98/S/5279 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That, as a response to the current debate on the pokie machine tax, Council calls on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to assess the feasibility of the following reforms:

 

a)                  The adaptation of existing machines to operation by an electronic card system, which shall:

i.                     be sold by pokie machine site operators to customers on behalf of the State Government for a uniform purchase price which will return to the Government;

ii.                   be available in a range of additional prices to allow operation of the machines with the revenue from the sales flowing to the site vendors;

iii.                  contain an electronic component that will allow the Government to set maximum hourly rates of use and maximum daily rates of use; and

iv.                 will be keyed to the particular machines in a specific site, not be transferable between sites.

 

b)                  Reducing poker machine numbers in clubs by 25% over five years coupled to a corresponding reduction in taxation;

 

c)                  The introduction of legislation that requires machines to turn off for ten minutes after one hour play and that ensures that players can only lose $50 each hour; and

 

d)                  The banning of free courtesy buses.

 

11.9          By Councillor Matson – Mr Alex Burak’s Complaints re: the Rice Noodle and other Restaurants.  (SH/0704 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the General Manager will bring a report to the next Council Meeting detailing Council’s responses to complaints by Alex Burak concerning the Rice Noodle and other Restaurants.