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

 

 

7th October, 2003

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 14TH OCTOBER, 2003 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  His Worship, the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan, Crs Andrews (Deputy Chairperson), Backes, Bastic, Daley (Chairperson), Greenwood, Matson, Matthews, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Schick, Seng, Tracey, White, Whitehead.

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2000, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2003.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 77/2003 - 61 HIGH ST RANDWICK (PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL) SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO CONSENT TO DELETE CONDITIONS 6, 7, 8, 10 AND 11.

2

 

5.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 98-104 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

6

 

5.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 801-899 BUNNERONG ROAD, CHIFLEY.

29

 

5.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 60 ROBEY STREET, MAROUBRA.

66

 

5.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 48 ROBEY STREET, MAROUBRA.

84

 

5.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 4 WISDOM STREET, COOGEE.

100

 

5.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 19 TORRINGTON ROAD, MAROUBRA.

138

 

5.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 18A FIGTREE AVE, RANDWICK.

150

 

5.9                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 212 COOGEE BAY ROAD, COOGEE.

168

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 78/2003 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DUAL OCCUPANCIES AND SUBDIVISIONS PROVISIONS.

212

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 80/2003 - MAROUBRA JUNCTION TOWN CENTRE - DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 33) AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2003.

222

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 81/2003 - SYDNEY AIRPORT MASTERPLAN - RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL SUBMISSION.

261

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGAER


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 77/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

61 High St Randwick (Prince of Wales Hospital) Section 96 modification to consent to delete Conditions 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11

 

 

DATE:

24 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D0494/2001/GR

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Section 96 application seeks to delete conditions 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, which relate to the provision of stormwater detention for the  Prince of Wales Hospital site known as 61 High St Randwick. The applicant is the Health Administration Corporation, a Crown Authority. As a Crown application Council is unable to refuse the application without the Minister of infrastructure and Planning’s concurrence. In the event of a differing of decision between a Crown Authority and the consent authority being Council the application is referred to The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources for mediation. Before this can proceed Council must resolve to pursue mediation through a Council resolution.

 

This report seeks resolution from Council to pursue mediation since Council can not support the proposed Section 96 application to modify consent.

 

ISSUES:

 

The section 96 application seeks to modify development consent 494/2001 for which approval was granted to relocate the Spinal Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit from Prince Henry Hospital to the Prince of Wales Hospital on 21 August, 2001.

 

The Section 96 application seeks to delete conditions 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 from the original development approval. Condition 6, 8, 10 and 11 relate to the provision of onsite detention whilst condition 7 details the requirements for any proposed pump systems.  Each condition is outlined below;

 

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

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater.  Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

7.         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 system must also be designed and stalled strictly in accordance with “Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS” as stipulated in Randwick City Council’s Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council’s onsite detention requirements have been put in place in order to reduce the prevalence of any potential flooding in the city of Randwick. Thus Council’s current practice is to request that all new developments, which are located in areas covered by the onsite detention policy (excluding single dwelling houses), provide onsite detention such that the total runoff from the site is reduced. The applicant states that onsite detention is not required as the proposed development is not increasing the total runoff from the site. Council’s Asset and infrastructure services section can not support the applicants argument in this case since there are currently stormwater and drainage detention problems throughout the whole hospital site and the proposal will exacerbate matters if stormwater management mechanisms are not put in place. Conditions 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 aim to address these impacts.

 

PROVISIONS UNDER THE EP & A ACT:

 

Section 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended relates to any development application made by or on behalf of the crown. Under this section of the Act a consent authority must not:

 

(a)        refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or,

(b)        impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister of the applicant.

 

Section 116E of the Act relates to the potential for negotiation in determining development applications. Section 116E (4) states that if agreement between the consent authority and the applicant has not been agreed to then the application is referred to the Minister for determination. This report seeks Council’s resolution to agree to the officer’s recommendation and hence refer the application to the Minister for determination.

 

AIS COMMENTS:

 

The applicant is seeking the removal of the conditions relating to stormwater detention since they have sought advice from Hughes Trueman Engineers stating that:

 

(a)        there is no increase in impervious area at the site due to the development and the existing site is already almost fully developed the proposed development does not increase the stormwater runoff over that currently existing

(b)        the approach adopted by the applicant is to limit post-development stormwater flows to some nominated discharge which may be less than existing site discharges, by arguing that the development only occupies 1.85% of the overall site. Any contribution the subject proposal makes to existing site runoff is miniscule.

 

The site is currently intensively utilised for technical and specialised medical uses and the stormwater, drainage and runoff is not adequately controlled or monitored and more appropriate mechanisms for management of any additional uses on the site need to occur, as such the conditions were imposed. Additionally, these conditions were agreed to by the applicant prior to the granting of consent. The applicant in this proposal fails to highlight or include any alternative measures to deal with the stormwater problem and impact which will be exacerbated by any additional development.

 

The application was referred to the AIS department for comment. The following response was provided:

 

“In response to the applicant’s point regarding the proposed development only taking 1.85% of the total site it is noted that most individual development sites are quite small and alone would have negligible impact on Council’s overall drainage system, however, when all of the small development sites are combined, the cumulative impact is significant.” Especially since the proposal is not related to a domestic/residential use but rather a “specialised” and more intensive use of the site.

 

In relation to deleting condition 7, it is noted that this condition starts with ‘Should a pump system be required…..’. Thus if the proposed development does not require a pump system then the condition does not need to be satisfied. However, until the stormwater works are finalised, it cannot be determined whether or not a pump system will be used. Thus the AIS Department also object to the deletion of condition 7.

 

Based on the above comments, the AIS Department recommends that the new development provide onsite detention in accordance with the issued consent, and objects to conditions 6, 8, 10 and 11 being deleted and as such the AIS Department can not support the proposed S96 application.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The applicant has been advised that Council is unable to support the deletion of these conditions and the applicant maintains that the conditions are unreasonable and cannot be achieved. In the instance of such difference, mediation is the only next appropriate step towards achieving a decision on the application. Before the application can be referred to the Minister for consideration the Council must pass a resolution agreeing to that step occurring.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That Council resolve to retain conditions 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of development consent 494/2001 in accordance with Council’s onsite detention requirements.

 

B.         That Council, should it agree to A. above, refer the matter, in accordance with Section 116D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to the Minister administering the Act for determination.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

30 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/448/02

 

PROPOSAL:

 Establishment of footway restaurant, extension of trading hours, and use of coolroom at rear of site

PROPERTY:

 98-104 Beach Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Oxford International Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bruce Notley-Smith, Murray Matson and Freda Backes.

 

The development application applies to existing restaurants located at No. 98 (Jack & Jill’s Fish Café), No. 100-102 (Rice Restaurant) and No. 102 (P4 Pizza Restaurant) Beach Street, Coogee.

 

The proposal is for the establishment of footway restaurants for all three restaurants (that is, Jack & Jill’s Fish Café, Rice Restaurant and P4 Pizza Restaurant), and extension of trading hours for, and use of coolrooms at rear of, the Rice Restaurant and P4 Pizza Restaurant. The proposed extension to trading hours and use of coolrooms has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services and found to be acceptable subject to conditions including a requirement for submission of an acoustical report. However, the footway dining proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the DCP – Restaurants on Public Road, Footways, Airspaces above Roads and Public Land in terms of the required width of residual footway necessary for public access, and has not provided for fully demountable/removable terrace structures over the sloping footpath given that no change to existing footpath levels will be permitted. Accordingly, a condition requiring the footway dining proposal to be deleted from the application will be applied should approval be granted for the application.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the development application subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the following works/uses:

 

§ Construction of footpath terracing for a footway restaurant along the Beach Street frontage of No. 98 (Jack & Jill’s Fish Café), No. 100-102 (Rice Restaurant) and No. 104 (P4 Pizza). It is proposed to provide for three tables outside the Jack & Jill’s Café, three tables outside the Rice Restaurant and two tables outside P4 Pizza. 

 

§ Extension of trading hours for both the Rice and P4 Pizza Restaurants to 9.00am to 10.00pm Mondays to Thursdays, and 9.00 am to 11.00 pm Fridays to Sundays with the premises being vacated by patrons by 10.30 pm Monday to Thursday and 11.30 pm on Fridays to Sundays (see Section 4 below for current hours of operation).

 

§ Use of coolrooms in the rear yards of No. 100-102 Beach Street (Rice Restaurant) and No. 104 Beach Street (P4 Pizza), which will be enclosed.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Beach Street and Arcadia Street and has an existing two-storey rendered brick building with three existing ground floor restaurants comprising the following:

 

No. 98 Beach Street                 Jack & Jills Fish Café

No. 100-102 Beach Street       Rice Restaurant

No. 104 Beach Street               P4 Pizza Restaurant

 

To the north of the subject site, on the opposite side of Arcadia Street, are a mix of single and two-storey dwelling houses fronting Beach Street, to the east on the opposite side of Beach Street are two storey residential flat buildings, to the south is a residential flat building, to the west is a two-storey dwelling house which is listed as a heritage item.

 

4.         SITE HISTORY

 

The following relevant applications apply to the subject site:

 

No. 98 Beach Street (Jack & Jills Fish Café)

 

DA 0111/97 – Installation of canvas awning and use of footway for outdoor dining – Approved 19/06/1997 (Consent Expired on 19/06/1999)

 

DA 0556/98 – Extension of mechanical exhaust system – Approved 25/08/1998

 

No. 100-102 Beach Street (Rice Restaurant)

 

DA 1318/99 – Renovate existing restaurant to provide for a new restaurant use – Approved 15/12/1999

 

Note:   Condition No. 3 restricted the hours of operation to 11.00am to 9.00pm seven days a week with the bi-fold doors at the front of the premises being closed promptly at 9.00pm.

 

Section 96 to amend DA 1318/99 – Approved 22/09/2001

 

Note:   The Section 96 approval amended the hours of operation to :

 

Monday to Thursday - 12.00noon to 9.00pm (premises vacated by 10.00pm)

Friday and Saturday - 12 noon to 10.30 pm (premises vacated by 11.00pm)

Sunday - 12 noon to 9.00 pm (premises vacated by 10.00pm)

 

The bi-fold doors at the front of the premises are to be closed promptly at 9.00 pm Monday to Thursday inclusive of Sunday and 10.30 pm Fridays and Saturdays.

 

The Section 96 also imposed Conditions 21 – 26 including the provision of an Acoustic Report to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation (Condition 21), and the expiration of the extended hours of operation after 12 months, whereby the hours of operation would revert back to the original approved hours (Condition No. 23)

No. 104 Beach Street            (P4 Pizza Restaurant)

 

DA 0600/97 – Internal alterations and use as a coffee shop – Approved 13/01/1998

 

Note:   Condition No. 3 restricted the hours of operation for the P4 Restaurant             from 8.00am to 9pm 7 days per week.

 

Section 96 to modify DA 0600/97 – Approved 15/08/2000

 

Note:   The Section 96 approval amended the hours of operation to extend the hours of operation to 9.00pm Monday to Thursday and to 10.30 pm Fridays and Saturdays with the premises being vacated by the patrons by 10.00 pm Monday to Thursday and by 11.00 pm Fridays and Saturdays.

 

The Section 96 also imposed Conditions 5 – 10 including the provision of an Acoustic Report to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation (Condition No. 5), and the expiration of the extended hours of operation after 12 months, whereby the hours of operation would revert back to the original approved hours (Condition No. 7)

 

DA 0460/98 – Establishment of a footway restaurant – Approved 26/08/1998

 

Note:   Condition No. 11 restricted the hours of operation for the footpath restaurant to 10.00am to 9.00pm seven days.

 

Condition No. 12 restricted the seating capacity for the footpath restaurant to a maximum of 6 people.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1       Objections

 

M. Johnston, 1/101 Beach Street, Coogee

 

§ Extension of trading hours will be intolerable in terms of noise.

§ Unclear as to when proposed bi-fold doors will be closed and last meals served.

§ Noise impact on residential properties on Beach Street has not been investigated.

§ Increased traffic and demand for carparking by dine-in and take-away patrons.

§ Footway restaurant will exacerbate noise, traffic and demand for carparking.

§ No drawings provided on footway restaurant which does not comply with DCP requirements.

§ There is history of complaints relating to breach of trading hours and non-compliance with conditions of consent.

 

M. Devine, 3/101 Beach Street, Coogee

 

§ Extension of trading hours will be intolerable in terms of noise.

§ Unclear as to when proposed bi-fold doors will be closed and last meals served.

§ Noise impact on residential properties on Beach Street has not been investigated.

§ Increased traffic and demand for carparking by dine-in and take-away patrons.

§ Incorrect description of locality and its existing uses.

§ No drawings provided on footway restaurant which does not comply with DCP requirements.

§ There is history of complaints relating to breach of trading hours and non-compliance with conditions of consent.

 

N. Livermore, 2/95 Beach Street, Coogee

 

§ Increased traffic and loss of existing on-street carparking spaces.

§ Significant noise pollution from patrons well into 10pm

 

A Burak, 29 Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

§ Extension of trading hours is unnecessary, goes beyond the parameters of the previous consents and to the detriment of local residents.

§ Proposed footpath trading to 11pm is not appropriate in the residential zoned land.

§ Existing noise levels from kitchen and backyard including staff breaks, mechanical exhaust ducts and commercial freezers of the existing restaurants are already unacceptably high.

§ Footway restaurants will have detrimental noise effects.

§ Littering in footpaths and gutter by patrons.

§ Drinking and smoking environment detrimental to objector’s family when they play outside.

§ Restaurant use has a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the objector’s property.

 

5.2       Support

 

No submissions in support of the proposed development 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       Environmental Health and Building Comments

 

The Environmental Health and Building Services (EHBS) advises as follows:

 

Issues

Footway dining

The current consents allow for footway dining outside two occupancies of the subject premises. These include four (4) people outside Jack & Jill’s Restaurant and six (6) people outside P4, total of ten (10) chairs.

 

Additionally, the footway dining outside these premises is limited to the 10:00am – 9:00pm seven days.

 

The proposed footway dining hours is for eight (8) tables with four (4) chairs across the three occupancies of the subject premises. This includes three (3) tables outside Jack & Jill’s, three (3) tables outside Rice Restaurant and two (2) tables outside P4 Pizza Restaurant, total proposed thirty – two (32). However, the plans submitted detail nine (9) tables outside the three occupancies with the provision for twenty (20) chairs.

 

Also, the application for footway dining outside these premises is for;

 

Monday to Thursdays:            9:00am – 10:00pm

Fridays to Sundays:                9:00am – 10:30pm

 

It is considered that the application in its current form in regards to the footway dining proposal is unacceptable in that;

 

The increase in number of seats for footway dining from ten (10) to thirty two (32) persons is considered excessive and is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearby residents due to their close proximity;

The increase in footway dining hours from 9:00pm to 10:00 & 10:30pm is likely to have an impact upon the amenity of nearby residents due to the additional noise that will be generated.

Adequate information has not been provided demonstrating compliance with Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 in relation to access for persons with disabilities.

It is therefore considered that the application with regards to the footway dining area should be refused.

However, should the application be approved, it is recommended that conditions be imposed in relation to;

·          the closure of the bi - fold doors upon completion of the footway dining operation in order to minimise the noise emission (as per previous consents);

·          the approval being granted for a trial period of twelve (12) months to enable the impact upon the amenity of the locality to be monitored;

·          the hours of operation of the footway dining area being limited to reduce the potential impact upon the amenity of nearby residents; and

·          the footway dining area being limited to twenty (20) persons as detailed in the submitted plans.

·          compliance with the Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 in relation to access for persons with disabilities.

 

Noise - General

The Environmental Health Unit has required the submission of acoustic reports and previous developments consents have required the submission of acoustic reports, however to date, the reports received have been inadequate and unacceptable. Sufficient details in relation to noise emanating from the mechanical ventilation systems, cool room / freezer motors and staff / patron noise for all three occupancies, that being Rice, P4 and Jack & Jill’s have not been provided.

 

The Environmental Health Unit continues to receive complaints in relation to noise emanating from;

           

·    cool room and freezer room motors located at the rear of the premises;

·    mechanical ventilation systems located on the roof of the premises; and

·    staff noise generated at the rear of the premises.

 

It is considered that the enclosure of the rear area may have a positive impact on minimising noise from the cool room / freezer motors and staff activities within the rear area, however further assessment is required to be conducted upon the completion of works to ascertain compliance with relevant noise standards.

 

Should the application be approved then a condition will therefore need to be imposed regarding the submission of an acoustic report upon the completion of works and prior to the commencement of extended trading hours.

 

Noise – Operational hours

 

The proposed operational hours for 100 – 104 Beach Street are as follows;

 

Monday to Thursdays:            9:00am – 10:00pm – patrons to be vacated by 10:30pm

Fridays to Sundays:                9:00am – 11:00pm  - patrons to be vacated by 11:30pm

 

It is considered that the proposed extension of hours for the indoor dining area is excessive.

An extension of trading hours was granted for 100 – 104 Beach Street however these hours did not commence, as conditions of consent were not achieved. It is considered that the hours granted on the previous section 96 applications should be attached to this consent with a minor alteration to the Sunday to Thursday hours.

Should the application be approved, the trading hours should be limited to;

Sunday to Thursday:   9:00am – 9:30pm

Friday & Saturday:     9:00am – 10:30pm

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the premises within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

Rear storage area (housing the cool rooms)

An assessment of the plans has revealed that the rear storage area is to be enclosed.

Should the application be approved then standard food premises and construction conditions will need to be imposed.”

 

6.2       Assets and Infrastructure Services Comments

 

The Assets and Infrastructure Services Department advises as follows:

 

“The distance from the property alignment to the face of kerb at the site frontage is approximately 3.7 metres. Randwick City Council's Development Control Plan "Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace Above Roads and Public Land" specifies that footpath seating may only be installed if the unencumbered residual footpath width is at least 2.5 metres. Thus the footpath seating area shall be no wider that 1.2 metres, and given that a further 0.5 metre setback from the kerb is required if the seating area is installed adjacent to the kerb line, the footpath seating area should be installed adjacent to the property line.

 

The footpath in the vicinity of the proposed footpath seating area has a grade of approximately 1 in 8 and the applicant proposed to construct a terrace on the footpath to accommodate outdoor tables and chairs.

 

Our previous memo dated 12 June 2002 specified that any terrace structure constructed on Council’s footpath must leave a minimum 2.5 metres wide section of footpath unimpeded for pedestrian use, and must be constructed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Additionally, the memo clearly stated that structures will only be permitted on the footpath during the hours of operation of the footpath restaurant. Thus the terrace structure must be demountable/removable so that it can be removed from the footpath every night.

 

The additional details (Drawing No. 078/WD01) received by the AIS Department on the 9 May 2003 show the terraced area being constructed behind the kerb in Beach Street and do not address the issues from our previous memo. In particular:

 

1.         The width of the resultant unimpeded footpath is only 1.5 metres (not 2.5 metres as required)

 

2.         The footpath dining area is setback on 450mm from the kerb line (rather than 500mm as required).

 

3.         The submitted plan shows Council’s footpath being terraced. This is not acceptable. The terrace structure must be fully demountable/removable and shall be placed on top of the existing concrete footpath. (i.e. there must be no change to the existing footpath levels).

 

Compliance with points 1 and 2 above would result in the footpath dining area being only some 0.7 metres wide. This is considered to be inadequate for footpath dining, and as suggested in our previous memo, the applicant may need to consider installing the footpath dining area adjacent to the property line where a width of 1.2 metres could be provided.

 

In addition to the above outstanding issues, it is noted that the applicant intends to extend the footpath dining area in front of Jack and Jill’s Fish Café (No. 98 Beach Street). It is understood that a letter of consent from the owners of Jack and Jill’s café has been forwarded to the EPCD Department in relation to this matter. The AIS Department would not object to the lease area extending in front of No. 98 Beach Street provided that the letter of consent is valid.

 

The concerns raised in our previous memo dated 12 June 2002 have not been addressed. The AIS Department does NOT support the application for footpath dining in its current form.”

 

In view of the concerns raised by the Assets and Infrastructure Services Department, the footpath dining proposal will be required to be deleted from the application.

 

6.3       Heritage Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that no heritage objections are raised to the proposed works at the rear of the property in relation to the heritage item at No. 29 Arcadia Street. 

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Development for the purposes of a restaurant is prohibited in the Residential 2C zone. However, the subject site enjoys existing use rights and the existing restaurant uses on-site are approved non-conforming uses.

 

8.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

The following DCP is relevant to the proposed development:

 

§   Development Control Plan – Restaurants on Public Road, Footways, Airspaces above Roads and Public Land

 

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       Statutory/Policy Controls

 

The plans submitted for the footway restaurant indicate that the proposal fails to comply with the DCP in that it does not provide for the required 2.5m unencumbered residual width for public access along the footway. No information has been provided to demonstrate that departure from the standard as proposed would still ensure satisfactory public access along the footway. As such, the part of the proposal relating to the footway dining area will be required to be deleted should approval be granted for the application.

 

9.2       Public Amenity and Safety

 

The footpath that is the subject of the proposed footway restaurant has a grade of approximately 1 in 8. The applicant proposes to construct a terrace on the footpath to accommodate outdoor tables and chairs. Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services (DAIS) has advised that any terrace structure constructed on Council’s footpath must leave a minimum 2.5 metres wide section of footpath unimpeded for pedestrian use, must be constructed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, and must be demountable/removable so that it can be removed from the footpath every night (that is, structures will only be permitted on the footpath during the hours of operation of the footpath restaurant). The applicant was requested in a letter dated 14 June 2002 to provide additional information to address the DAIS’s issues. Additional details provided by the applicant dated 13 September 2002 failed to address the DAIS’s issues. As such, the DAIS does not support the proposal for a footway restaurant as proposed. Accordingly, the part of the proposal relating to the footway dining area will be required to be deleted should approval be granted for the application.

 

9.3       Amenity Impacts

 

Concern has been raised by the owners/residents of the adjoining rear property to the west in relation to noise from mechanical equipment and activities associated with the operation of the restaurant. The Environmental Health and Building Services advise that the proposed enclosure of the rear area may have a positive effect of containing noise from the cool room/freezer motors and staff activities. A condition requiring the preparation of an acoustic report to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation and prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the building works for the rear enclosures will be applied should approval be granted. In particular, the report is to include an assessment plant and equipment and noise attenuation measures if necessary.

 

Local residents have also raised concerns regarding the potential noise impacts arising from the proposed extended trading hours. The applicant has requested an extension to indoor trading as follows:

 

Monday to Thursdays:          9:00am – 10:00pm – patrons to be vacated by 10:30pm

Fridays to Sundays:              9:00am – 11:00pm  - patrons to be vacated by 11:30pm

 

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services advises that the proposed extension to indoor dining hours is excessive and has recommended that the hours be shortened to the following:

 

Sunday to Thursday:     9:00am – 9:30pm

Friday & Saturday:       9:00am – 10:30pm

 

with all patrons to vacate the premises within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

In addition, as the footway dining aspects of the proposal will be required to be deleted prior to the issue of any consent for the subject application, no noise impacts from dining activities on the footpath will arise under this application.

 

9.4       Heritage/Design Issues

 

The subject site adjoins an existing heritage item in the adjoining western lot at No. 29 Arcadia Street. Clause 46 of the Randwick LEP 1998 requires Council to consider the heritage impacts of proposal in the vicinity of heritage items. The proposed enclosure of the cool rooms to the rear will be constructed of fibrous cement and built to the common boundary with No. 29 Arcadia Street. The enclosure will have an internal ceiling height of 2.1m which is not considered excessive and will be consistent with the height of the existing fibro fence along the common boundary. The proposed enclosure will not have a detrimental impact on the existing heritage item at No. 29 Arcadia Street as it will be low in bulk and scale and, therefore, will not be visually intrusive in relation to the heritage item. Furthermore, the proposed enclosure will tidy-up the rear yard which is currently an unsightly open storage and coolroom area. In addition, Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposal and raises no objections to the proposed enclosure.

 

9.5       Resident Submissions

 

§ Unclear as to when proposed bi-fold doors will be closed and last meals served.

 

A condition will be applied requiring the bi-fold doors at the front of the premises to be closed at 9.30 pm Sunday to Thursday and 10.20 pm Friday to Saturday.

 

§ Noise impact on residential properties on Beach Street has not been investigated.

 

A condition will be imposed on the consent requiring an acoustic report to be submitted to and accepted in writing by Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation and prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the building works. The acoustic report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics and will be required to be undertaken at the most affected residential locations (having regard to the local topography / building levels) including, where determined by the consultant to be necessary, properties in Beach Street.

§ Increased traffic and demand for carparking by dine-in and take-away patrons.

 

The proposal will not involve any increase in floor area in the existing restaurants and the proposed footway dining will be deleted from the proposal. As such, there will be minimal increase in traffic and demand for carparking as a result of the proposal. No objections have been raised by Council’s Traffic Engineer to the application.

 

§ Proposed footpath trading to 11pm is not appropriate in the residential zoned land.

 

The proposed footway dining will be required to be deleted from the application should approval be granted.

 

§ Existing noise levels from kitchen and backyard including staff breaks, mechanical exhaust ducts and commercial freezers of the existing restaurants are already unacceptably high.

 

A condition will be imposed on the consent requiring an acoustic report to be submitted to and accepted in writing by Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation and prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the building works. The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics and is to include an assessment of the background noise level (LA90) during the day, evening and night periods; of all plant and equipment located at 98 – 104 Beach Street during the times of operation for each of the three restaurants, having regard to plant and equipment operated singularly and combined, and appropriate noise attenuation measures required.

 

§ Littering in footpaths and gutter by patrons.

 

Littering of footpaths and gutters occur primarily where footpaths are used for outdoor dining. As the proposed footway dining area will be deleted from the application should approval be granted, littering of footpaths and gutters will not arise as an issue. Notwithstanding this, it is the responsibility of the operators of the existing restaurant businesses to maintain the footpath and gutters in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The applicant’s request for extended trading hours has been granted with a shortened closing time as recommended by Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services. The proposal to enclose the rear section of No. 100-102 and No. 104 Beach Street is supported subject to conditions including a requirement for an acoustical report to indicate compliance with relevant Australian Standards, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval.

 

The footway dining proposal does not comply with the DCP - Restaurants on Public Road, Footways, Airspaces above Roads and Public Land relating to the 2.5m requirement for an unencumbered residual footpath width for public access. In addition, the applicant has failed to provide adequate details of the terracing for the footway dining restaurant in particular the use of demountable structures. As such, the part of the proposal relating to the footway dining area will be required to be deleted should approval be granted for the application.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0448/2002 for the establishment of footway restaurants, extension of trading hours, and use of coolrooms at rear of the site at 98-104 Beach Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan prepared New Age Constructions dated May 2002 and received by Council on 5 June 2003 and 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 part of the application relating to the footway dining shall be deleted from the application for the following reasons;

 

a.         The footway dining proposal does not comply with requirements of the Development Control Plan – Restaurants on Public Road, Footways, Airspaces above Roads and Public Land

 

b.         Insufficient information has been provided on the nature of the proposed terrace structures over the existing footpath and compliance with Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 in relation to access for persons with disabilities.

 

c.         The increase in number of seats for footway dining from ten (10) to thirty two (32) persons is considered excessive and is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearby residents due to their close proximity.

 

d.         The increase in footway dining hours from 9:00pm to 10:00 & 10:30pm is likely to have an impact upon the amenity of nearby residents due to the additional noise that will be generated. .

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

3.         The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment (from the premises at 98 – 104 Beach Street Coogee) is not to give rise to a sound pressure level at any point on a residential boundary or within any residential dwelling. that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level measured in the absence of the noise sources under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with Environmental Protection Authority guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations and temporal content, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Environmental Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

4.         An acoustic report is to be submitted to and accepted in writing by Council prior to the commencement of the extended hours of operation and prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the building works.

 

The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics and the report and assessment is to be completed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval.

The report is to include (but not be limited to);

 

a)         an assessment;

i.          of the background noise level (LA90) during the day, evening and night periods.

ii.          of all plant and equipment located at 98 – 104 Beach Street during the times of operation. This is to incorporate the use of the three occupancies, when plant and equipment is operated singularly and combined.

iii.         at the most affected residential locations (having regard to the local topography / building levels)

b)         a plan detailing the location of all plant and equipment;

c)         clearly and specifically detailing any noise attenuation measures required.

 

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

 

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

 

7.         The hours of the operation of 100 – 104 Beach Street are restricted to:-

 

            Sunday to Thursday:     9:00am – 9:30pm

            Friday & Saturday:       9:00am – 10:30pm

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the premises within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

8.         The bi – fold doors at the front of the premises are to be closed at 9:30pm, Sunday to Thursday and 10:30pm, Friday & Saturday.      

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

9.         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.

10.       All waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales. Details of the proposed waste service for the site are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

11.       Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

12. The garbage storage area is to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer. Approval is to be obtained from Sydney Water

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Safety Standards under the Food Act 1989 and Council’s Food Premises Code:

13.       The premises is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Food Premises Code and Food Safety Standards Code under the Food Act 1989 and details of compliance are to be included in the plans and specification for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

            In the event of conflict between the Food Safety Standards and Council’s Food Premises Code, the Food Safety Standards will prevail.

14.       Council is to be notified upon completion or work and prior to occupancy, to enable the premises to be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the premises must be registered with the Council as a food premises (on an annual basis) prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate and prior to occupation of the alterations / additions.

 

15.       The design and construction of the food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

·       The floors of the food preparation areas, storage areas and the like are to be constructed of materials, which are impervious, light coloured, non-slip and non-abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·       The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, having a minimum radius of 25mm.

 

·       Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of solid construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall to a minimum height of 2m above the floor level, to provide a smooth even surface.

 

·       Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

 

·       The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non-absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

 

·       All stoves, refrigerators, bain maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, pipe work, cupboards, counters, bars etc to be supported on wheels or metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

 

·       Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

 

·       Adequate fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, (where applicable), are to be provided to all door and window openings, and an electronic insect control device is to be provided within the food premises.

 

·       Ceramic tiles being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

 

·       A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius must be easily accessible to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.

·       Provide adequate light fittings and diffusers within the kitchen/preparation and storage areas.

16.       No food preparation / cooking is to be conducted within the rear food storage area.

 

17.       Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 1989 and the Food Safety Standards Code at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

 

·          Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

·          Health and hygiene requirements.

·          Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

·          Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

·          Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

The following condition is to be applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

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

 

The following condition is to be applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

19.       External walls having a minimum Fire Resistance Level of 180/180/180 and being of face brick construction to ensure ready maintenance being provided to the northern, southern and western sides of the rear addition and full details being included on the required plans for a construction certificate.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·          Sediment control measures.

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

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

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

25.       Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.       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.

 

29.       Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature trip 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.

 

30.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

32.       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.

 

33.       The footpath within and adjacent to the footway dining area must be maintained in a clean condition, free from grease, foodstuffs, litter and waste materials at all times.

 

The footpath must be cleaned thoroughly on a regular basis, in a manner that is environmentally satisfactory and waste receptacles (eg. ash trays) must be provided within the area for customers.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reduced Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 June, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0891/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Replacement of an existing cricket pitch, installation of two new cricket pitches, extension and reconfiguration of the existing cricket playing area, removal of existing earth embankment, installation of cricket practice nets, and replacement of existing boundary fence.

PROPERTY:

 801-899 Bunnerong Road, Chifley

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Peter Neads

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors John Procopiadis, Peter Schick, and Michael Daley.

 

The application is for upgrading works to the Cricket playing area in the Women’s Athletics Field comprising the replacement of an existing cricket pitch, installation of two new cricket pitches, installation of cricket practice nets, removal of existing earth embankment, reconfiguration and extension of cricket playing area, and replacement of existing boundary fence.

 

The proposed works are permissible in the 6A Open Space zone. 

 

The subject site has contamination issues, including the presence of asbestos, arising from previous landfill activity on the site. However, these issues will be addressed through appropriate measures recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), including the capping of the site with clean-fill material to an appropriate depth, with appropriate details to be provided to Council in an Environmental Management Plan indicating that the land in its contaminated state is suitable for the proposed use. Accordingly, a condition of deferred commencement will be applied to the proposal should approval be granted requiring the submission of an Environmental Management Plan identifying the extent of asbestos on the site, existing fill depths, and remediation and validation methods for the site. In particular, it will require details of the material and depth of the proposed capping layer. The Environmental Management Plan will be required to be submitted to, and approved by, a suitably qualified and independent consultant who will provide a written statement to Council stating that the Environmental Management Plan is suitable for ensuring the site and its intended use will have no unacceptable health risks to the users of the site.

 

The proposal is Crown development under Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the subject land is owned by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions. A copy of the draft conditions was referred to the Trust for concurrence under the provisions of Section 116 of the EP&A Act. The Trust has objected to a number of conditions and as such, it is recommended that Council refer the application to the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources for the purposes of negotiating a determination of the development application as provided for under Section 116 D and E of the Act. 

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal generally is for the upgrading works to the existing cricket playing area comprising the following:

 

1.         Extension of the eastern edge of the existing cricket playing area to permit the installation of two additional junior cricket ovals on the playing area each with 40m non-overlapping boundaries. This will allow the playing of two concurrent matches of junior cricket while retaining the capacity to play senior cricket on an existing refurbished and repositioned pitch with a 60m boundary on the site.

 

2.         Removal of an existing earth embankment that runs east-west across the centre of the sports area that divides the softball area from the cricket area. The material from this embankment will be used to extend the eastern edge of the existing playing area to allow for installation of the new junior cricket pitches as outlined in 1 above.

 

3.         Remove existing senior synthetic pitch and install a new senior pitch to be located more centrally in the extended ground to make better use of the boundary limits of the extended area.

 

4.         Install a set of four synthetic surfaced practice nets with protective safety netting near the Hastings Avenue side of the grounds. The practice nets will be made level with the existing playing area by cutting into the existing embankment area.

 

5.         Levelling the cricket playing area with crushed weathered sandstone and clean sand fill overlain by top-soil with subsequent regrassing.

 

6.         Replacement of existing boundary fence along Hastings Avenue, which will be a 385m long, 1.8m high, rail-less type chain-wire fence. Two pedestrian access points, 1 m in width, are proposed along Hastings Avenue.

 

7.         Relocation of the existing entrance to the sports field from Bunnerong Road approximately 10 to 15m to the north to reduce potential for traffic accidents during car entry to and egress from the Sports field.

 

8.         Removal of weed and scrub at the margins, and rehabilitation of the playing area with the site to be progressively landscaped.

 

9.         Reshaping of the margins of the playing area to minimise surface water run-off along the boundaries of the playing area including installation of a water/silt trap at the south-eastern corner.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The area that is the subject of the development application forms part of the sports fields known as the Womens Athletics Field which is bounded by Bunnerong Road to the west, Little Bay Road to the south, and Hastings Avenue to the east. The Womens Athletic Field comprises an existing cricket playing area and wicket in the southern section, and a softball playing area, amenities block and car park to the north.

 

The surrounding area comprises predominantly residential development, and open space and institutional uses. To the east and north-east is existing low-density detached housing, to the west on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road is the Botany Cemetery and the State Heritage listed Chinese Market Gardens, and to the south on the opposite side of Little Bay Road is vacant land with temporary paddocks currently the subject of a draft Master Plan for residential development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The following development applications apply to the subject site:

 

DA 092/88 – Levelling and grassing for a soft-ball field – Approved 14/7/1982

 

DA 135/88 – Amend existing consent – Approved 14/7/1982

 

DA 107/86 – Construction of women’s softball field – Approved 1/7/1990

 

DA 382/91 – Erect fencing on existing cricket grounds and construct a carpark –

Approved 1/12/1992

 

612/95 – Construct carpark and drive-way entrance – Approved 20/8/1996

 

The site was first established as a sporting field on 2 September 1955. The site was redesigned to accommodate womens’ softball and cricket in 1989 by levelling the site with waste-fill to a depth of approximately 6m to 9m capped by soil and top-soil and then grassed.

 

From 1955 to 1999 the sportsfield was administered by the Womens Amateur Sports Council (NSW). Following a restructure of the trust management, the site is owned and managed by the former Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) and controlled by the Chifley Athletic Sports (Women) Reserve Trust.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. One submission was received as follows:

 

C. Azzgerdi (No address given)

 

§ Existence of Senior Cricket Field is doubtful.

 

§ Fill for extension of the eastern edge of the cricket field came from external sources.

 

§ Noise from cricket wickets and practice nets.

 

§ Devaluation of property.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Environmental Health and Building Comments

 

The Manager Environmental Health and Building Services advises as follows:

 

“Following a meeting held on the 9 May 2003 between Council Officers and all parties involved in the development application for the subject premises, the Environmental Protection Authority were contacted and issues pertaining to their recent correspondence were discussed.

 

In summary, the following was stated:

 

·          In relation to contaminant concentrations and groundwater assessment, comprehensive assessments have not been undertaken.

 

·          The EPA agreed to oversee the matters in an effort to save money for the cricket association and assist council, however they do not have a legal / statutory obligation to assist in any way.

 

·          The EPA is prepared to issue “conditional statements”, as they are unable to categorically say, “the site is suitable for its intended use”.  They also reconfirmed over the phone that no evidence has been found that a significant risk of harm exists on the site – except with respect to asbestos. The asbestos needs to be managed appropriately on site (unless the site is currently and proposed not to be used).

 

·          EPA officer Helen Davies explained that the EPA has taken a “common sense” approach in assessing the site’s suitability in relation to land and groundwater contamination. It is the EPA’s opinion that, if there is 1/2m to 1m of clean fill on top of the existing surface, it is reasonable and sensible to assume that the exposure pathway is removed and it is acceptable to use the site for a playing field subject to a suitable EMP being developed and implemented.  This is of course unless the contaminant of concern can still migrate, however there is no evidence to suggest this at this site with reference to investigations already undertaken. If the Council (as the consent authority) is not confident in this approach or is unsure of the adequacy of the Rutherford assessments, the EPA (Helen Davies an Bill Gara) advised Council that they should ask for an auditor to assess.

 

·          The EPA was clear that they are happy to assist and oversee however not to sign off categorically or instruct what should be done – which is the role of a site auditor or the Council.

 

·          In relation to groundwater contamination and assessment of migration, it is suggested that the Council view the development application in context.  The site will be capped and used as a playing field with minimal excavation and no structures are being built.  Should contaminated groundwater be found the expected action to follow is to remediate the land to ensure the groundwater is not contaminated.  Given the nature of this site and its proposed use (with respect to this development application) this action is deemed unreasonable.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to a deferred commencement consent, with the following deferred commencement conditions being attached to the approval:

 

Deferred commencement conditions:

1.         An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the remediation and ongoing site monitoring management of the site is to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant with demonstrated experience in the field of preparing and implementing Environmental Management Plans.  This plan is to be prepared in accordance with the “Environmental Management Systems Guidelines” by NSW Department of Public Works and Services, 1998; and references should be made to the “Guidelines for the Assessment of Onsite Containment of Contaminated Soil” ANZECC, 1999 and “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites” NSW EPA, 1997.

 

The plan is to include (but not be limited to) strategies for the management of asbestos. This is to incorporate;

 

·          Identification of the extent of asbestos on the site

·          Removal and / or capping of asbestos on the site. Fill depths and specific areas are to be identified.

·          Validation methods (including demonstration of the use of VENM soil in the capping layer)

·          Supervision of works required

 

The EMP is to be submitted to and approved by a suitably qualified and independent consultant. The consultant is to provide a written statement to Council stating that the EMP is suitable for ensuring the site and its intended use will have no unacceptable health risks to the users of the site.

 

The NSW EPA is to provide Council with written confirmation that the site poses ‘No Significant Risk of Harm’.

 

Once all this information is submitted to and is accepted by the Council, Council will issue a letter to the applicant indicating compliance with this condition.”

 

The EHBS has also provided a list of conditions applicable once the Deferred Commencement conditions are met and the consent is operational.

 

6.2  Assets and Infrastructure Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“An application has been received to extend the eastern edge of the existing cricket playing area to permit the installation of two additional cricket ovals on the playing area at the above site.

 

The application also seeks development approval to relocate the entrance to the sports fields from Bunnerong Road. It is proposed that this be moved 10 to 15 metres to the north of the existing entrance and the existing entrance be abandoned.

 

The application also makes reference to the use of an existing area of the site for carparking. The DAIS is of the opinion that the applicant’s reference to the informal parking arrangement that currently exists on the site could be interpreted as a request for the carpark to be formally approved by Council as part of this development application. Conditions, therefore, relating to the carparking area, (together with an advisory condition/comment), have been included within this report.

 

Site History

 

In July 1990 Council granted development consent for the site work for future softball fields.

 

At its meeting held on 23rd September, 1997, Council resolved that:-

 

“a report be prepared regarding the state of the Women’s Athletics Fields on Bunnerong Road, Matraville and, in particular, the requirements for a new entrance, new fencing and the removal of rubbish.”

 

The conditions of development consent relating to the above resolution are as follows:

 

7.         A deceleration lane be provided adjacent to the existing pavement to the satisfaction of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) formerly the Department of Main Roads.

 

8.         The ingress and egress from the road pavement to the road boundary shall be redesigned to be perpendicular to the centreline of Bunnerong Road.

 

9.         The egress of the car park shall be located a minimum of 40 metres clear of the northern street alignment of Little Bay Road.

 

10.       The width of the southern access road from the car park shall not be greater than 3.5 metres and signposted as an exit only.

 

11.       No vehicle access be provided from Hasting Avenue.

 

The erection of a fence around the perimeter of the site to deny pedestrian access to the site from Hastings Avenue to the satisfaction of the Chief Town Planner.

 

In June 1991 building approval for the new clubhouse was granted and although the conditions don’t relate to the above Council resolution the following drainage condition was applied:

 

The applicant is to provide drainage to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of Engineering Services for the low point on the north-eastern section of this site. This drainage shall cope with stormwater which flows from the Fisherman’s Club site to the north of the subject development since this overland flow has been impeded by the fill operations on the subject site.

 

To date the DAIS is of the opinion that this condition of building approval has not been complied with.

 

General Discussion

 

The above conditions of consent, (conditions 7 to 12 inclusive from the original development consent and condition 22 from the 1991 building approval), have generally not been complied with.

 

The DAIS is of the opinion that Conditions 8 to 10 relate to a proposed carpark area located adjacent to Bunnerong Road and in close proximity to the intersection of Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road (see Section 10.7 below). The DAIS is also of the opinion that this proposed carpark area has only been presented in conceptual form and no formal engineering plans have been received detailing pavement design, linemarking, drainage design or signposting. The subject carpark appears to be located in an area that is predominantly outside the applicant’s lease area and potentially the development consent granted in July 1990 did not adequately address ownership issues.

 

The DEPCD is advised that Conditions 7, 8 and 11 from the previous consent have been included within this report, (in a modified form), Condition 12 has not been included as it makes reference to approval by the Director of Planning and Conditions 9 and 10 have not been included because they make reference to a carparking area the construction of which is unlikely to proceed.

 

The development site is in a degraded condition and significant filling works have taken place on the site without any formal/necessary consent. The DAIS is of the opinion that the owner of the site and previous trustees have failed in their responsibility to care for and maintain the site. The recommended conditions contained in this report attempt to rectify a number of problems associated with non-compliance with previous consents, inadequate maintenance and works carried out without consent.

 

Carparking, Access and General Traffic Comments based on current application.

 

The applicant advises that the proposal will have ready access to existing carparking for approximately 125 cars in the carparking area to the north of the subject site. The applicant also advises that this existing carparking capacity will be in excess of the expected demand for both the cricket and softball organizations using the site. It should be noted, however, that the carparking area that is proposed to be utilised for the proposed upgraded cricket facility was previously created from unauthorised fill material that has not been cleared or checked for contamination and has in turn created significant drainage problems by blocking and/or redirecting the previously existing stormwater overland flowpath. It should also be noted that the carpark area has not been constructed with a hard pavement, stormwater drainage for the carpark cannot be clearly identified/considered and the parking layout has not been formally linemarked.

 

The proposed use of this carparking area by the cricket association should not be viewed as Council condoning and approving of the carpark given its unauthorised status. A condition/s will be applied requiring the applicant to rectify and remedy this unauthorised carparking situation and its environmental impacts. A further advisory condition will be applied advising the applicant that the use of the existing northern carpark does not constitute Council approval for the carpark

 

The applicant makes reference to a proposed relocation of the vehicular entry/exit point however the plans do not show the proposed amendments, (the new entry/exit point is to be 10 to 15 metres north of the current location).

 

Landscape Comments

 

A review by Council’s Landscape Design Coordinator of the material submitted for the development application for the redevelopment of the cricket playing field showed that the following points need to be addressed:

 

·    Detailed landscape plans must be submitted showing planting species, especially around the proposed carpark.

 

·    A bush regeneration management plan needs to be prepared showing the treatment to the weed infested areas of the site and the rehabilitation of the banks.  A landscape plan for these areas will also be needed showing plant species and erosion control methods to the banks once weeds are removed.

 

·    Street trees need to be incorporated in the landscape plans and species need to be in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.  Street trees to be shown along Bunnerong Road, Little Bay Road and Hasting Avenue.

 

Bryan Bourke inspected the site on 15/11/01 and reported that there are no significant trees on the site. He also stated that the Street Tree masterplan for this area recommends Angophora costata to be planted at 15m spacings.

 

Council’s Bushland Management Technician, (Tina Digby), inspected the site on 15/11/01 and she commented as follows: 

 

This area has two bushland remnants in the weed along Bunnerong Rd.  One is at the base of the batter and may be affected by filling.  The weed infestation on the site is also an issue.  Weed control is the responsibility of the lessee generally.

 

It is recommended that:

 

§ An on-site meeting between the proponent and council’s bushland staff be arranged to identify remnant vegetation.

 

§ No disturbance or development in the vicinity of the bushland remnants is to be permitted.

 

§ The applicant be conditioned to provide a weed control strategy, including erosion control measures, in any development consent for the site.

 

The DEPCD is advised that relevant conditions addressing the various concerns/issues raised above have been included within this report.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Onsite stormwater detention is not required for this application. The DAIS recommends that the following condition from a previous building approval be included within this report as, to date, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance:

 

The applicant is to provide drainage to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of Engineering Services for the low point on the north-eastern section of this site. This drainage shall cope with stormwater which flows from the Fisherman’s Club site to the north of the subject development since this overland flow has been impeded by the fill operations on the subject site.

 

Timing/Staging Comments

 

At a meeting held within Council on 1/10/2002, (attended by the Mayor, Council officers and representatives of the South Eastern Cricket Club), issues relating to past non compliance with Council directives and staging issues for this development application were discussed. The minutes from this meeting are attached and the recommended conditions of consent within this report reflect the agreed outcomes from this meeting”.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Under the provisions of Amendment No 17 to Randwick LEP 1998, a Council adopted Master Plan is required prior to a consent authority determining a development application for areas greater than 4,000 square metres within the City of Randwick except for sites which have been granted a waiver under Clause 40A(2) of the Randwick LEP which allows Council to waive the requirement for a Master Plan if it is satisfied that the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place. Whilst the site exceeds 4000 sqm, the applicant, in a letter dated 18 July 2001, requested Council to waive the requirement for a Master Plan. At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2001, the requirement for a Master Plan was waived by Council on the basis that Council was satisfied that the development is of a minor nature and that it is ancillary to the current use of the site. The applicant was required to addressed a range of issues in the development application including site contamination, landscaping, earthworks and drainage. These issues have been covered in the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application and are assessed in Section 10 of this report and in subsequent conditions applicable to the proposal should approval be granted.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Open Space 6A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.2       Crown development applications (Section 116).

 

The proposal is development under Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Crown development).

 

8.3       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Clause 7 of the Policy states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

 

(a)        it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)        if land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)        if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

Consideration has been given to the contamination issues arising from the previous landfill activity on the site. These have been addressed by the EPA and Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services resulting in a requirement for an Environmental Management Plan to be submitted by the applicant to Council so as to satisfy both the EPA and Council that the land in its contaminated state is suitable for its intended use (see Section 10.8 below).

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1       Policy Controls

 

There are no policy controls applicable for recreational uses.

 

10.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible in the Open Space 6A zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 subject to Council’s consent.

 

10.1.1  Determination of Crown development applications (Section 116).

 

A Consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf of the Crown or a prescribed person, must not:

 

(a)        refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister,or

(b)        impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or applicant.

 

As the proposed consent for this application will impose a number of conditions to ensure that the development complies with all controls and relevant standards, these conditions have been referred to the applicant for comment on 23 June 2003 and for concurrence of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources as the Crown Authority (copy of Draft Conditions of Consent is attached). The Trust has responded to the draft conditions of consent and objected to the following requirements:

 

·        Preparation and submission to Council of an Environmental Management Plan dealing with asbestos (and any other contaminants if found to be of concern) in the site and confirmation from the NSW EPA confirming that the site poses ‘No Significant Risk of Harm’ (Draft Deferred Commencement Condition No.1).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust maintains that an appraisal of site contamination is unnecessary as the EPA have advised that it will not be assessing the site under the Contaminated Land Management Act for significant risk of harm.

 

Council’s comments: The EPA in a letter dated 24 April 2003 (a copy is attached to this report) advised that an appraisal of site contamination under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 is not necessary provided the following requirements are implemented:

 

1.         Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) itemising the actual steps for the proposed works on site in order to ensure any potential environmental and health problems are addressed appropriately both during and following remediation, and in accordance with the EPA’s publication titled “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites” which provides guidance for the preparation of environmental management plans in relation to validation and ongoing site monitoring management plans.

2.         The presence of asbestos on-site be assessed in any stockpiles or other fill containing building and demolition waste present on the premises, before they are moved or disturbed by earthworks on the site.

3.         Areas that are the subject of earthworks involving the moving or disturbing of fill with asbestos should be covered to a depth of 500mm (areas devoid of asbestos may be covered to a shallower depth of 300mm).

4.         Implementation of management systems to ensure that there will be no use of groundwater on the site.

 

Council has included these requirements by way of appropriate conditions of consent which, as indicated above, have not been agreed to by the Trust. In particular, it should be noted that the requirement for an Environmental Management Plan is necessary as Council must ensure that statutory obligations under SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land are met (see Section 8.3 above). Under the provisions of SEPP 55 Council must be satisfied that the land is already remediated or is capable of being remediated for its intended use.

 

·   Provision of a new environmental contamination assessment for any additional development works within the site (Draft Condition No. 4).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust considers it unreasonable to prepare a new environmental contamination assessment for additional minor works.

 

Council’s comments: Council’s concern is that any future additional development works involving excavation may give rise to new concerns regarding contamination given the potentially contaminated nature of the fill material in the site. Notwithstanding this, the condition can be deleted subject to a modification to the Deferred Commencement Condition No. 1 to require the inclusion of appropriate measures in the EMP to deal with contamination issues that may arise from future development works involving excavation. 

 

·   Payment of a $2000 security deposit against damage to Council’s infrastructure (Draft Condition No. 18).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust advises that this condition is unreasonable given its financial constraints and given that the Trust will be carrying out beautification and rectification of the entry point to the site.

 

Council’s comments:  Council has agreed to waive the $2000 security deposit requirement. The condition, accordingly, will be deleted.

 

·   Provision of drainage works to address the problem of overland flow across the site which has been impeded by the build-up of unauthorised landfill across the site (Draft Condition Nos. 22, 23 & 24).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust advises that these conditions are onerous as the Trust has ‘inherited’ the drainage problems from the previous Trust.

 

Council’s comments:  The drainage works are a requirement for any development on the subject land and needs to be complied with for the site and for the general amenity of the area and neighbouring properties. It should be noted that the applicant has been given a period of 5 years (from the date of the consent being issued) for all site stormwater drainage works to be completed as agreed to in previous meetings between Council’s officers and representative of the Trust. The Trust is currently using existing buildings and fields, which were subjected to similar conditions in a previous development consent which were never complied with. Since the fields and buildings are being used by the current Trust, it is considered appropriate that compliance with these conditions be sought.

 

·   Reconstruction of existing Council stormwater pits that have been buried as a result of previous landfilling activities (Draft Condition No. 25 & 26).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust advises that these conditions are onerous as the Trust has ‘inherited’ the drainage problems from the previous Trust.

 

Council’s comments:  The drainage works are a requirement for any development on the subject land and needs to be complied with for the site and for the general amenity of the area and neighbouring properties. It should be noted that the applicant has been given a period of 5 years (from the date of the consent being issued) for all site stormwater drainage works to be completed as agreed to in previous meetings between Council’s officers and representative of the Trust. The Trust is currently using existing buildings and fields, which were subjected to similar conditions in a previous development consent which were never complied with. Since the fields and buildings are being used by the current Trust, it is considered appropriate that compliance with these conditions be sought.

 

·   Creation of stormwater drainage easements over existing stormwater pipelines that burden the site (Draft Condition No.27).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust advises that these conditions are onerous as the Trust has ‘inherited’ the drainage problems from the previous Trust.

 

Council’s comments:  The drainage works are a requirement for any development on the subject land and needs to be complied with for the site and for the general amenity of the area and neighbouring properties. It should be noted that the applicant has been given a period of 5 years (from the date of the consent being issued) for all site stormwater drainage works to be completed as agreed to in previous meetings between Council’s officers and representative of the Trust. The Trust is currently using existing buildings and fields, which were subjected to similar conditions in a previous development consent which were never complied with. Since the fields and buildings are being used by the current Trust, it is considered appropriate that compliance with this condition be sought.

 

·   Provision of information on piering of the existing amenities building on-site in relation to Council’s existing stormwater (Draft Condition No. 28).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust advises that this information is readily available in Council.

 

Council’s comments: The details of piering for the existing amenities building is required to determine its location in relation to an existing Council stormwater pipeline. There is no indication that this information on piering is available in Council. Notwithstanding this, Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services (DAIS) has agreed to the deletion of the draft condition subject to its replacement with the following condition:

 

“The owner of the land shall indemnify Council against any liability claims arising from any damage sustained as a result of failure of Council stormwater pipeline at any time, now and in the future”.

 

·   Removal of all dumped fill material located adjacent to the northern perimeter of the site and the area suitably regraded and landscaped to Council’s satisfaction (Draft Condition No. 29).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust does not want to be responsible for removal of fill for areas beyond the boundary of the subject site/lease-hold area.

 

Council’s comments:  The condition requires details to be provided to Council of illegal dumped material in the northern section of the subject site. Should the applicant provide information that the fill material lies entirely outside of the site boundary, there will be no requirement for removal of fill material. Accordingly, the DAIS advise that draft condition No. 29 should remain.

 

·   Preparation and submission to Council of a plan for carparking (Draft Condition No. 31).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust does not agree to hard paving of the carpark area.

 

Council’s comments:  It should be noted that the current application makes reference to the use of an informal car park that currently exists on the site to meet the car parking requirements of the current proposal. Draft condition No. 31 requires the submission to Council of a plan for the construction of a carpark to serve the proposed development, which must include, amongst other things, ‘pavement details’. No reference has been made to hard paving in this condition. Furthermore, the applicant has been given a period of 5 years (from the date of the consent being issued) for carpark construction to be completed as agreed to in previous meetings between Council’s officers and representative of the Trust. Accordingly, the DAIS recommend that Draft Condition No. 31 should remain.

 

·   Relocation of the entry/exit point for the development site and creation of a deceleration lane in Bunnerong Road in accordance with RTA requirements (Draft Condition No. 32).

 

The Trust’s response: The requirement to relocate the vehicular entry point 10 metres north would place the entry point beyond the northern boundary of the subject site.

 

Council’s comments:  It should be noted that it is the applicant that has made reference to, and sought approval for, the proposed relocation of the existing vehicular entry/exit point to a new location 10 to 15 metres to the north of the existing location. However, in doing so, it is also the applicant that has failed to provide not only all necessary details of the proposed new location but also of the surveyed boundaries of the existing site including land ownership in and around the existing entry/exit point and carpark area. As such, the imposition of draft condition No.32 is reasonable.  The DAIS advises that the existing entry/exit point and associated carpark area appears to be located in an area that is predominantly outside the applicant’s lease area.  As such, the DAIS recommends that draft condition No.32 be further amended to include the following statement:

 

“The applicant shall submit a letter to Council indicating approval from all owners of land immediately adjoining the subject site/lease area for the construction of any vehicular entry/exit road and carparking area where applicable, and such approval shall include either the formalisation of a right-of-way for any vehicular entry/exit road over the relevant land owners road or other suitable legal agreement.”

 

·    Submission of detailed landscape plans showing planting species, with particular emphasis on the areas around any proposed or existing carpark Draft Condition No. 38).

 

The Trust’s response: The Trust argues that $50,000 bond for landscaping is still held by Council from the previous development application, and should be released for the current requirement of this draft condition.

 

Council’s comments:  The landscape security bond imposed on the previous development consent issued for the subject site is a matter that is exclusive to that previous development application and cannot be linked to the landscaping requirements generated by the current application. The requirement for a landscape plan for areas around any proposed or existing carpark is considered reasonable and necessary for improving the general amenity of the area.

 

·   Inclusion of street trees in the landscape plans showing species in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s Street Tree Masterplan and street trees along Bunnerong Road, Little Bay Road and Hasting Avenue (Draft Condition No. 39).

 

The Trust’s response: There is inadequate space beyond the boundary on Hastings Avenue for tree planting.

 

Council’s comments:  The DAIS has agreed that the requirement for tree planting in Hastings Avenue be deleted from the draft condition.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) contains provisions for dealing with Crown Applications where applications are able to be determined by consensus between the consent authority and the applicant. Specifically, the following sections of the Act apply:

 

Section 116D (1) states that “the applicant or the consent authority may refer the development application to the Minister if it has not been determined by the consent authority within 60 days after being lodged with the consent authority.”

 

Section 116E (1) states that “on being notified of the reference of a development application, the Director-General must convene a meeting between the consent authority and the applicant for the purpose of negotiating, as far as possible, a determination of the development application that is acceptable to them and that is in accordance with this Act.”

 

In view of the objections raised by the Trust to the draft conditions of consent, it is recommended that Council refers the application to the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources for the purposes of negotiating a determination of the development application as provided for under Section 116 D and E of the Act. 

 

10.2   Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

There are no Council policies and DCP standards applicable to recreational developments.

 

10.3     Site Suitability

 

Since its establishment in 1989 the existing cricket playing area in the Womens Athletics Field has become run-down and disused. The proposal will rehabilitate, upgrade and expand the playing area to permit more effective long term use of the site as a cricket facility available for both in and off-season training and for warm-up practice. The proposed upgraded cricket facility will provide a valuable resource for the game both locally and in the wider community. As such, the site is suitable and appropriate for the proposed use.

 

The subject site has contamination issues arising from previous landfill activity on the site. However, these issues can be addressed through appropriate measures recommended by the EPA subject to appropriate evidence being provided to Council in an Environmental Management Plan that the land in its contaminated state is suitable for it intended use (see Section 10.8 below).

 

10.4     Design

 

The proposal will redesign the cricket playing area consistent with the level and form of the existing playing field. The remodelling of the site will involve taking fill from an existing central embankment running east-west across the sports field between the existing cricket and softball areas and utilising it to extend the eastern edge of the cricket playing field on the Hastings Avenue side of the ground. This extension of the ground will allow three cricket pitches to be accommodated in the site comprising a repositioned and re-laid existing senior’s pitch in the centre and two new junior cricket pitches at the eastern and western parts of the field. Additionally, a set of four synthetic surfaced practice nets with protective safety netting will be installed near the Hastings Avenue side of the grounds. The practice nets will be made level with the existing playing area by cutting into the existing embankment area. This redesign of the cricket playing area is considered reasonable and acceptable given that it rationalises the use of the playing area and maximises the efficient use of the land.

 

The proposal also involves the replacement of the existing boundary fence along Hastings Avenue to secure the site. The proposed new fence will be a 385 m long, 1.8m high, rail-less type chain-wire fence. Two pedestrian access points into the sports area, each 1m in width and strategically located to facilitate access for local residents and visitors, will be provided along Hastings Avenue.

 

The design overall will be suitable for the site and its context.

 

10.5     Landscaping/Open Space

 

The proposal will involve grass planting on re-levelled sections of the site. The extended area to the east will be laid with top-soil and grassed to a suitable standard for cricket. Embankment areas are also proposed to be grassed and planted with scrubs and trees where appropriate. Council’s Bushland Officer has inspected the site and advises that there are two bushland remnants in weed-infested area of the site along Bunnerong Road.  One of the remnant is at the base of the existing batter on Bunnerong Road and may be affected by filling. Accordingly, the Bushland Officer advises that conditions be applied should approval be granted requiring that no disturbance or development be permitted in the vicinity of the bushland remnants and a weed control strategy, including erosion control measures, be prepared for the site. A detailed landscape plan will also be required.

 

10.6                 Impact on adjoining development

 

The proposal will essentially upgrade the existing cricket playing area which is currently in a state of disuse. The proposal will be a compatible use in the context of the adjoining and surrounding residential area. As no buildings are proposed to be erected in the subject site, and given that the site does not abut any residential area, there will be no overshadowing, overlooking or loss of view impacts from the proposed development.

 

10.7                 Carparking and Access

 

The applicant advises that the proposal will have ready access to existing carparking for approximately 125 cars in the carparking area to the north of the subject site. The applicant also advises that this existing carparking capacity will be in excess of the expected demand for both the cricket and softball organizations using the site. It should be noted, however, that the carparking area that is proposed to be utilised for the proposed upgraded cricket facility was previously created from unauthorised fill material that has not been cleared or checked for contamination and has in turn created significant drainage problems for the existing overland flow. The proposed use of this carparking area by the cricket association should not be viewed as Council support and approval of the carpark given its unauthorised status. A condition will be applied requiring the applicant to rectify and remedy this unauthorised carparking situation and its environmental impacts by requiring the submission to Council of a plan for the construction of a carpark area to serve the proposed development. A further advisory condition will be applied advising the applicant that the use of the existing northern carpark does not constitute Council approval for the carpark.

 

The proposal is not expected to generate significant additional traffic nor will it require additional carparking given the intermittent nature of its use. Nevertheless, conditions have been applied to introduce appropriate road works including relocation of the egress/ingress point for the development and construction of a deceleration lane in Bunnerong Road, which will improve traffic movement in the area. It should be noted that the site is adequately served by public transport along Bunnerong Road and Hastings Avenue.

 

10.8     Site Contamination

 

The existing subject site has previously been used as a landfill site for construction and building waste. As such, potential risk from contamination in the use of the site will need to be managed appropriately to ensure that the land is suitable for public open space. The EPA has been consulted on this matter and has advised that, whilst the presence of asbestos has been detected following testing of samples of fibrous materials collected on-site, there is nothing on the site that triggers assessment under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 for significant risk of harm. For this reason, the EPA has recommended that an Environmental Management Plan be developed for the site itemising the steps for the proposed work on site to ensure any potential environmental and health problems are addressed appropriately both during and following remediation. In particular, the EPA has recommended that the presence of asbestos on-site be assessed in any stockpiles or other fill containing building and demolition waste present on-site.

 

Following discussions with the EPA, Council’s Environmental Health and Building Services (EHBS) Section has advised that the application can be approved subject to a deferred commencement consent requiring the applicant to submit an Environmental Management Plan identifying the extent of asbestos on the site, fill depths and specific areas of concern, and remediation and validation methods for the site. It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to cap the site with clean-fill material to an appropriate depth to prevent any exposure of contaminated material. Accordingly, the Environmental Management Plan will, amongst other things, require details of the use and depth of Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) soil in the proposed capping layer and necessary supervision works. The EMP will be required to be submitted to, and approved by, a suitably qualified and independent consultant who will provide a written statement to Council stating that the EMP is suitable for ensuring the site and its intended use will have no unacceptable health risks to the users of the site. In addition, Council will also require written confirmation from the EPA that the site poses ‘No Significant Risk of Harm’.

 

Upon fulfilment of the deferred commencement condition, full consent can be issued which will contain a further condition requiring the applicant to submit a validation report essentially validating the suitability of the site for the proposed use.

 

10.9     Ecological Sustainable Development

 

The proposal will make efficient use of open space for sporting use by centralising and co-locating cricket pitches within an existing cricket playing area. This will allow for shared activities for recreation and nearby residential uses. The sporting field is generally well-served by public transport along Bunnerong Road and Hastings Avenue thus contributing, overall, towards ecological sustainability.

 

10.10   Resident Submissions

 

The issues raised in the submission to the proposed development are addressed below.

 

§ Existence of the Senior Cricket Field is doubtful 

 

The existence of the senior wicket is evident from information provided by the applicant with the application. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of this information. Furthermore, Development Consent No. 382/91 was granted in 1992 for works associated with the cricket ground.

 

§ Fill for extension of the eastern edge of the cricket field came from external sources

 

The applicant has advised that fill for the extension of the eastern edge of the cricket grounds will come internally from the existing embankment within the site. No evidence has been provided to Council that the fill used in the earthworks partially undertaken to the eastern edge thus far is from external sources. Council will apply appropriate measures to treat any potential contamination from all existing fill material on-site through the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan as discussed in Section 10.8 above.

 

§ Noise from cricket wickets and practice nets

 

The proposal is for the installation of two new junior cricket pitches, which only be used alternate to the existing senior cricket pitch (that is, not all three cricket pitches will be used at one time). The use of the two junior cricket pitches will occur mainly during the cricket season and is not considered to give rise to noise nuisance as the closest pitch will be located at a considerable distance of approximately 25-30m from the closest residential property on Hasting Avenue.

 

§ Devaluation of property

 

The issue of property values in relation to the proposal is a matter that is beyond the scope of assessment of the development application. Nevertheless, it is considered that the proposed improvements and upgrading to the cricket playing would improve the amenity of the existing facility in the locality.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible in the Open Space 6A zone with Council’s consent. The proposal will provide improved and upgraded recreational facilities for club and community use. Issues regarding site contamination will be dealt with through an Environmental Management Plan, which will be required for the site as a deferred commencement condition of consent.

 

As the land is owned by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, the proposal is Crown development under Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions. A copy of the draft conditions was referred to the Trust for concurrence under the provisions of Section 116 of the EP&A Act. The Trust has objected to a number of conditions and as such, it is recommended that Council refer the application to the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources for the purposes of negotiating a determination of the development application as provided for under Section 116 D and E of the Act. 

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That Council resolve to modify and retain Deferred Commencement Condition No. 1, and retain conditions Nos. 1 to 43 of development consent 0891/2001 with the exception of conditions Nos. 4 and 18, which will be deleted, and conditions Nos. 28, 32 and 39, which are to be modified and renumbered, as listed below.

 

B.         That Council, should it agree to A. above, refer the matter, in accordance with Section 116D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to the Minister administering the Act for determination.

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following material has been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:

 

1.         An Environmental Management Plan (EMP)  for the remediation and ongoing site monitoring management of the site is to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant with demonstrated experience in the field of preparing and implementing Environmental Management Plans.  This plan is to be prepared in accordance with the “Environmental Management Systems Guidelines” by NSW Department of Public Works and Services, 1998; and references should be made to the “Guidelines for the Assessment of Onsite Containment of Contaminated Soil” ANZECC, 1999 and “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites” NSW EPA, 1997.

 

The plan is to include (but not be limited to) strategies for the management of asbestos. This is to incorporate;

 

·    Identification of the extent of asbestos on the site

·    Removal and / or capping of asbestos on the site. Fill depths and specific areas are to be identified.

·    Validation methods (including demonstration of the use of VENM soil in the capping layer)

·    Supervision of works required

·    Appropriate measures to address contamination issues that may arise from future development works involving excavation (including, but not limited to, erection of buildings, bbq facilities, shelters, excavation works, etc).

 

The EMP is to be submitted to and approved by a suitably qualified and independent consultant. The consultant is to provide a written statement to Council stating that the EMP is suitable for ensuring the site and its intended use will have no unacceptable health risks to the users of the site.

 

The NSW EPA is to provide Council with written confirmation that the site poses ‘No Significant Risk of Harm’.

 

Once all this information is submitted to and is accepted by the Council, Council will issue a letter to the applicant indicating compliance with this condition.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent in accordance with Clause 95(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulation 1998, or the consent will lapse.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Environment, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Plan 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Rutherford Mineral Resources Consultants, received by Council on 25 September 2001, as amended pursuant to the deferred commencement condition, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, any plans specifications report study or information submitted in relation to the deferred commencement conditions and any conditions of approval of any plan specification report or study, as  amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

2.   A validation report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified, independent consultant, who has demonstrated experience in environmental and asbestos management and remediation and be submitted to Council.  This report shall be prepared with reference to the NSW EPA “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites”, and shall include (where applicable);

 

·          Description and documentation of all works performed.

·          Results of validation testing and monitoring.

·          Validation results of any imported fill onto the site.

·          Demonstrate how all agreed clean-up criteria and relevant regulations have been satisfied.

·          Clear justification as to the suitability of the site for the proposed use and the potential for off-site migration of any residual contaminants.

 

3.   The Environmental Management Plan for the use of the site is to be adopted and implemented by the site occupiers and recorded against the title of the land.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

4.   All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.  In this regard all contractors and employees shall adopt work practices in accordance with the requirements of WorkSafe’s Control of Inorganic Lead at Work (NOHSC:102(1994) and NOHSC:2015(1994).

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

6.   All remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and Planning NSW, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

7.   Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

•        New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

•        The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

       The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001;

•        Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

•        Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

8.   Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

9.   Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the EPA accredited site auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘virgin excavated natural material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

10. A Site Health & Safety Plan being prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by the site auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. All works are to be carried out in accordance with this plan. This plan shall include (as applicable):

            •           hazard identification and control

            •           site security

            •           personal protective equipment

            •           work zones and decontamination procedures

            •           contingency plans and incident reporting

            •           environmental monitoring

 

11. Any new information, which comes to light during remediation works, which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination, shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

12. All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

13. Prior to the commencement of works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times.  Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

14. All remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

 

Monday – Friday          7am – 5pm

Saturday                       8am – 5pm

No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

15. The works shall not give rise to an environmental or public nuisance or, cause any offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

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

 

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

 

17. The applicant shall submit to Council for approval a detailed site stormwater management plan/strategy. The management plan/strategy shall be prepared in consultation with Council’s Drainage Engineer and shall address, (as a minimum), the stormwater design issues referred to in the following drainage conditions. The site stormwater drainage management plan/strategy must be submitted to Council for approval no later than 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works. The applicant is advised to submit the site stormwater drainage management plan/strategy to Council for approval prior to the commencement of site construction works to facilitate better co-ordination of the stormwater drainage works.

 

18. The site stormwater management plan/strategy shall include engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage. 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, 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 pipeline system.

 

c)   Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a minimum 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 (or alternatively a perimeter vee drain constructed to direct any surplus run-off up to the 1 in 100 year storm event) to the Council drainage system.

 

d)   The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit.

 

e)   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.

 

f)    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.

 

19. The site stormwater management plan/strategy shall make provision for a sediment/silt arrester pit/s (or equivalent structure/method for achieving stormwater quality improvements) to be located within the site at or near the street boundary prior to that portion of the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the Council stormwater drainage system. A suitable sign must be located adjacent to this pit stating that the silt arrester pit must be regularly maintained and cleaned.

 

20. The applicant is to provide drainage to the satisfaction of Council for the low point on the north-eastern section of this site. This drainage shall cope with stormwater which flows from the Fisherman’s Club site to the north of the subject development given that this overland flow has been impeded by the fill operations on the subject site. Details of this drainage shall be submitted with the site stormwater management plan/strategy.

 

21. The site stormwater management plan/strategy shall make provision for a `V' drain/s to be constructed along or adjacent to the perimeter of the property, to direct all site stormwater up to a 1 in 100 year storm event, to a sediment/silt arrester pit (or equivalent structure/method for achieving stormwater quality improvements), prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the Council stormwater drainage system.

 

            Note: this condition applies to the perimeter of the entire site with particular reference to the following:

 

i.      the area adjacent to the softball area that presently drains into the Fisherman’s Club and the northern portion of Hastings Avenue.

 

ii.  the temporary car parking area adjacent to Bunnerong Road. This area should be regraded so that the existing stormwater runoff is either:-

 

·    directed along the top of the fill batter to a suitable location where it is to be piped to the Council stormwater pipeline system in Little Bay Road.

 

                                        OR ALTERNATIVELY

 

·    suitably drained and piped to the existing Council stormwater pipeline that burdens the site.

 

iii. the area that is adjacent to the southern portion of Hastings Avenue (where the invert of the vee drain shall be constructed below the existing alignment levels of Hastings Avenue)

 

22. Any internal pipeline that the applicant proposes to connect to a Council stormwater pipeline shall be connected via a junction pit. Note that the junction pit shall be constructed as follows:

 

1.   over the Council pipeline.

2.   in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing No SD 8.

3.   the lid of the pit shall be constructed with a Mascot round road manhole frame and solid cover top (product no. 20:S10:EH)

 

23. The three existing Council stormwater pits located within the development site that have been buried as a result of the previous site filling activities, shall be raised to the surface and reconstructed generally in accordance with Council’s standard drawing No SD 8., (Note: if the depth to invert following reconstruction is greater than 5 metres, the pit shall be reconstructed in accordance with plans prepared by a qualified structural engineer and approved of by Council).

 

Note the lid of these pits shall be constructed with a Mascot round road manhole frame and solid cover top (product no. 20:S10:EH).

 

All costs associated with reconstruction of the pits, (including pit design if required), shall be met by the applicant.

 

24. The applicant shall submit and have approved a site stormwater management plan for the regular cleaning and maintenance of the site silt arrester pit/s.

 

25. A minimum 5 metres wide stormwater drainage easement shall be created centrally over the existing stormwater pipelines that burden the site.

 

Notes:

·    the easements are to be created in Council’s favour.

·    creation of the easements shall be at no cost to Council.

·    This requirement will be waived should the applicant demonstrate that suitable drainage easements have already been created.

 

26. The owner of the land shall indemnify Council against any liability claims arising from any damage sustained as a result of failure of Council stormwater pipeline at any time, now and in the future.

 

27. All dumped fill located adjacent to the northern perimeter of the site shall be removed and the area suitably regraded and landscaped to Council’s satisfaction. Details are to be submitted to Council for approval within 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

28. All site stormwater drainage works referred to in the above drainage conditions and resulting from the approved site stormwater drainage management plan/strategy shall be completed at full cost to the applicant and to Council’s satisfaction within a period of 5 years from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

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

 

29. The applicant shall submit to Council for approval, and have approved, detailed civil design drawings and specifications, (including stormwater drainage details and pavement details), for the construction of a carparking area to serve the proposed development. The detailed civil drawings and specifications shall be submitted to Council for approval within 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

30. The applicant shall meet the full cost for Council, or a Council approved contractor, to construct a new vehicular ingress/egress point for the development site. The location for the new ingress/egress point shall be approximately 10 – 15 metres to the north of the existing ingress/egress point. The applicant shall also submit a letter to Council indicating approval from all owners of land immediately adjoining the subject site/lease area for the construction of any vehicular entry/exit road and carparking area where applicable, and such approval shall include either the formalisation of a right-of-way for any vehicular entry/exit road over the relevant land owners road or other suitable legal agreement.

 

31. The applicant shall meet the full cost for Council, or a Council approved contractor, to construct a deceleration lane in Bunnerong Road adjacent to the existing pavement to the satisfaction of both Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). The costs shall include, but not be limited to, all design works, construction works and any required alterations to services. The applicant shall note the following:

 

·    The ingress and egress from the road pavement to the road boundary shall be perpendicular to the centreline of Bunnerong Road.

 

·    Council will not undertake any construction works on the deceleration lane until the internal carpark area referred to in the previous condition has been approved and constructed.

 

32. The new carpark area, deceleration lane and vehicular ingress/egress point shall be constructed at full cost to the applicant, and to Council’s satisfaction, within a period of 5 years from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

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

 

33. 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.

 

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

 

35. 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.

 

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

 

36. Detailed landscape plans must be submitted showing planting species, with particular emphasis on the areas around any proposed or existing carpark. The landscape plans must be submitted to Council for approval no later than 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

37. Street trees need to be incorporated in the landscape plans and species need to be in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.  Street trees are to be shown along Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road.

38. A bush regeneration management plan shall be prepared and submitted to Council for approval showing the treatment to the weed infested areas of the site and the rehabilitation of the banks.  A landscape plan for these areas will also be needed showing plant species and erosion control methods to the banks once weeds are removed. The bush regeneration management plan and the landscape plan shall be submitted to Council for approval within 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

39. Prior to the commencement of any site construction/regrading works the applicant shall arrange an on-site meeting with Council’s bushland staff to identify remnant vegetation. There shall be disturbance or development in the vicinity of the bushland remnants as identified.

 

40. The applicant shall provide to Council a weed control strategy, including erosion control measures. The subject weed control strategy shall be submitted to Council for approval, and be approved, within 6 months from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works. The applicant shall strictly comply with the approved weed control strategy.

 

41. All approved landscape, weed control, bush regeneration/management and erosion control works referred to in the above landscape conditions shall be completed at full cost to the applicant and to Council’s satisfaction within a period of 5 years from the date of the applicant being issued development consent for the proposed works.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

1.   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 works being carried out at the above site.

 

2.   The applicant is advised that any consent for this development proposal does not constitute Council’s approval for the carparking arrangement as detailed in the development application submission. The above conditions of consent seek to formalise the site’s carparking provision and to address many of the adverse environmental impacts created by the past indiscriminate filling of the site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Letter from the EPA dated 24 April 2003.

2.   A4 Attachments 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 


Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D0312/2003/GB

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A review to reconsider Council's decision to refuse the new vehicular crossing and proposed hardstand carparking space at the front of the existing dwelling.

PROPERTY:

 60 Robey Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Igor Ferdman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application was called up to a Committee meeting by Councillors Andrews, Sullivan and Bastic.

 

The proposal is a Section 82A request to review Council’s decision to refuse consent under delegated authority on 15 May 2003 to a development application proposing a new front hardstand carspace.

 

The relevant issues are streetscape, pedestrian safety and non-compliance with provisions of Council’s DCP for dwelling houses.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves a Section 82A review of Council’s determination of a development application for a new hardstand carspace in the front yard area of the existing dwelling house.  No changes are proposed to the original application.

 

The original proposal was for a new vehicular crossing and hardstand carparking space at the front of the existing dwelling.  The proposal also includes removing part of the existing brick fence to accommodate the new vehicular access.  The hardstand will be constructed with two concrete strips and grass in-between having a total dimension of 2500mm width and 4600mm length.

 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Robey Street in Maroubra and is occupied by an existing two storey semi-detached dwelling brick on the ground floor and first floor addition in lightweight construction having a site area of 208m² (see Figure 1).  The surrounding area is residential in nature containing semi-detached, single and two storey dwellings.

 

There are no other similar hardstand spaces in front of existing dwellings on the western side of Robey Street between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street.

Figure 1: 60 Robey Street

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original application was lodged on the 17 April 2003 and was refused on the 15 May 2003 for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carspace being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure will occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.

 

3.         Approval would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor and inappropriate precedent fore the streetscape.

 

The applicant has requested a review of this determination and lodged the Section 82A review on 24 July 2003.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the provisions of the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submission was received:

 

5.1       Objections

 

Nick Samaras & Angela Samarts of 62 Robey Street, Maroubra

 

Would like to object for the following reasons: -

 

1)         The hardstand carspace is inappropriate for the site, given the limited and restricted space available, which may protrude out onto Council’s footpath;

 

2)         The carspace will be adjacent to the front of both the objectors no. 62 and 58 Robey Street bedrooms causing a disturbance to the bedrooms; and

 

3)         Reducing the amount of green space on semi blocks will set an undesirable precedence for Robey Street causing a congested appearance and disturbance for the aesthetics of the streetscape, particularly to the objectors front window.

 

Comments

 

1)         It is acknowledged that the proposed carspace is relatively small and may protrude out onto Council’s Footpath.  Moreover the overall length of hardstand carspace fails to satisfy the minimum dimensions as detailed in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy having dimensions of only 4.6m x 2m. Refer to Section 5 – Garages & Driveways in report further outlining the concerns raised.

 

2)         The carspace at the front of the dwelling may cause a disturbance to the attached dwelling and surrounding properties and will set a poor precedent for future developments.  It is also acknowledged that the site is too small to allow provision for a carspace.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed hardstand carspace at the front of the property will set an undesirable precedent for future similar developments in front of narrow fronted semi-detached dwelling allotments in Robey Street.  Nonetheless supporting developments of this nature will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the character of the locality setting a poor precedent for future residential developments, and therefore recommended for refusal.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Engineering Issues

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

Civil works Comments

 

The EPCD department is to determine whether the internal car space dimensions meet Council’s requirements, (Construction plans show car space length as 4.6m, 0.6m less than standards)

 

Conditions were recommended with any approval.

 

7.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§ Building Code of Australia.

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

§ Development Control Plan – Parking

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. There are no other relevant clauses of the LEP 1998.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

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

 

The only relevant parts of the DCP that apply to the proposal are (4.1) Landscaping and Open Space and (4.7) Garages, Carports and Driveways.

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

7.2              Council Policies

 

Garages & Driveways – DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy development

 

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

 

Preferred solutions require car parking spaces to have minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways having a  minimum width of 3m and are to be set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and that car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment.

 

Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered more preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape, and that there is ample space available.

 

As noted in the original assessment, the proposed hardstand carspace fails to meet the Preferred Solution dimension of 5.5 metres in length.  Its proposed 4.6 metre length equates to a 0.9 metre shortfall.  The length required by the Preferred Solution is necessary to accommodate all standard passenger vehicle types with adequate room remaining for passage of persons, and so that the vehicle doesn’t encroach on the public road. The shortfall in this instance is considered to be significant.

 

Council’s preferred solution in the DCP requires that parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the site frontage.  The proposed parking space is 2.0 metres wide with a 2.8 metre opening, which results in a non-compliance of up to 0.9m with Council’s control, representing up to 49% of the frontage.

 

Many immediately surrounding streets are flooded with such examples of hardstand spaces at the front of properties. This trend has radically impacted on the streetscape in a number of negative ways;

 

(a)        it has decreased the “little” front yard area made available to semi-detached cottages and as such they become a concrete slab with minimal soft landscaping,

(b)        a vehicle located at the front and taking up a large percentage of the front yard detracts from the visibility of the front façade of the dwelling and becomes a visually imposing and dominant element,

(c)        most hardstand spaces fail to comply with Council’s minimum dimensions and size and as such overhang and protrude onto Council’s roadway causing a public liability issue. Many existing spaces were approved subject to conditions of consent limiting the size of vehicles parked in the spaces (being limited to small cars) however this is hard to regulate and realistically in today’s society most people have large vehicles with 4WD being very popular. Also once properties are sold, new owners are oblivious to this condition,

(d)        such spaces and associated vehicular crossings remove importantly needed on-street carparking and the cumulative impact is detrimental. Many surrounding streets have obliterated a large proportion of once easily obtainable public on-street parking. This is not in the community benefit.

 

Some examples of how hardstand spaces and carports to semi detached cottages detracts from the streetscape and removes any form of pedestrian amenity are provided below. These were taken from surrounding streets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The impacts of these non-compliances are considered significant, as there are no similar hardstand spaces in front of existing dwellings on the western side of Robey Street between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street.  Although there are examples beyond that section of the Robey Street streetscape, they do not form part of the streetscape in the vicinity of the site.  Setting a precedent in that part of Robey Street for hardstand car spaces that do not comply with the Preferred Solutions is considered unacceptable.  It is therefore considered that the proposed parking space would dominate and detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape and create an undesirable precedent.

 

8.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed hardstand carspace to the front of the existing dwelling does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the character of the locality setting a poor precedent for future residential development.

 

It is also noted that the construction of a vehicle crossing would involve the removal of at least one carparking space from Council’s street.  If this pattern were continued along the street, no street parking would be available along Robey Street.

 

For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed provision of a hardstand space forward of the building line is considered to have an adverse impact on the subject part of the Robey Street streetscape. The applicant has not presented an adequate case to justify the need for a non-complying off-street parking space.  As such the proposal cannot be supported in its current form and it is recommended that the original decision be confirmed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council's original determination of Development Application No. 0312/2003 dated 15 May 2003 to construct a hardstand carparking space at the front of the existing dwelling at 60 Robey Street, Maroubra, be confirmed for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carspace being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure will occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.

 

3.         Due to the inadequate length of the proposed parking space, some vehicles may extend beyond the property boundary and onto Council’s land.  The potential exists for injury by parked vehicles of persons using Council’s land for pedestrian purposes.

 

4.         Approval would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor and inappropriate precedent for that part of the western side of the Robey Street streetscape that is between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street.

 

5.         The proposal will remove at least one on-street car parking space from Council’s road, which is undesirable and not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Original delegated report

2. Architectural plans     

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D0181/03/GB

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A review to reconsider Council's decision to refuse a proposed new vehicular crossing and hardstand cars parking space at the front of the existing dwelling.

PROPERTY:

 48 Robey Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Anthony John Reid

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application was called up to a Committee Meeting by Councillors Andrews, Sullivan and Bastic.

 

The proposal is a Section 82A review of Council’s decision to refuse consent under delegated authority on 12 May, 2003 to a development application proposing a new front hardstand carspace.

 

The relevant issues are streetscape, pedestrian safety and non-compliance with provisions of Council’s DCP for dwelling houses.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves a Section 82 review of Council’s determination of a development application for a hardstand carspace in the front yard area of the existing dwelling house.  No changes to the original application are proposed.

 

The original proposal was for a new vehicular crossing and hardstand carparking space at the front of the existing dwelling.  The proposal also includes removing part of the existing brick fence to accommodate the new vehicular access.  The hardstand carspace will be constructed with two concrete strips having dimensions of 400mm width and small rocks in-between for drainage.  The total dimension of the hardstand carspace is 2500mm width x 5100mm length.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Robey Street in Maroubra and is occupied by a single storey brick semi-detached dwelling having a site area of 231.3m² (see Figure 1).  The surrounding area is residential in nature containing semi-detached, single and two storey dwellings.

 

There are no other similar hardstand spaces in front of existing dwellings on the western side of Robey Street between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street. 

 

 

Figure 1: 48 Robey Street

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original application was lodged on the 10 March 2003 and was refused on the 12 May 2003 for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carspace being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure will occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.

 

3.         Approval would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor and inappropriate precedent for the streetscape.  

 

The applicant has requested a review of this determination and lodged the Section 82A review on 5 June 2003.

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the provisions of the Local Environmental Plan 1998. 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  Engineering Issues

 

Conditions were recommended with any approval.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

§   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§   Building Code of Australia.

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

§   Development Control Plan – Parking

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. There are no other relevant clauses of the LEP 1998.

 

7.1       Policy Controls

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

 

The only relevant parts of the DCP that apply to the proposal are (4.1) Landscaping and Open Space and (4.7) Garages, Carports and Driveways.

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

 

 

Does not comply – assessment below.

 

7.2       Council Policies – DCP for Dwelling and Attached Dual Occupancy Developments

 

Landscaping

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced, dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation area, storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

Preferred solutions include that a minimum of 25m² of useable private open space be provided, a minimum of 40% of the total site area is provided as landscape area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping, and each dwellings private open space shall be capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

 

The proposal does not comply with the Preferred Solution in relation to landscaped area in that the construction of a hardstand carspace will result in a 5.5% loss of landscaped area, dropping the overall percentage of landscaped area for the site to 37.9%, from an original 43.4%. The degree of non-compliance represents a figure of 2.1%.  This is not considered to be a substantial or significant non-compliance.  Therefore, the proposal is acceptable with respect to landscaped area.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, and parking is to be located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment.

 

Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape.

 

As noted in the original assessment, the proposed hardstand carspace fails to meet the Preferred Solution dimension in length of 5.5 metres, which equates to a 0.4 metre shortfall.  The length required by the Preferred Solution is necessary to accommodate all standard passenger vehicle types with adequate room remaining for the passage of persons and so that the vehicle is located within the confines of the site. Many immediately surrounding streets are flooded with such examples of hardstand spaces at the front of properties. This trend has radically impacted on the streetscape in a number of negative ways;

(a)        It has decreased the “little” front yard area made available to semi-detached cottages and as such they become a concrete slab with minimal soft landscaping,

 

(b)        A vehicle located at the front and taking up a large percentage of the front yard detracts from the visibility of the front façade of the dwelling and becomes a visually imposing and dominant element,

 

(c)        Most hardstand spaces fail to comply with Council’s minimum dimensions and size and as such overhang and protrude onto Council’s roadway causing a public liability issue. Many existing spaces were approved subject to conditions of consent limiting the size of vehicles parked in the spaces (being limited to small cars) however this is hard to regulate and realistically in today’s society most people have large vehicles with 4WD being very popular. Also once properties are sold, new owners are oblivious to this condition,

 

(d)        Such spaces and associated vehicular crossings remove importantly needed on-street carparking and the cumulative impact is detrimental. Many surrounding streets have obliterated a large proportion of once easily obtainable public on-street parking. This is not in the community benefit.

 

Some examples of how hardstand spaces and carports to semi detached cottages detracts from the streetscape and removes any form of pedestrian amenity are provided below. These were taken from surrounding streets.

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s preferred solution in the DCP requires that parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the site frontage (in this case 2.1m). The proposed parking space is 2.5 metres wide, which results in a non-compliance of 400mm with Council’s control, representing 41% of the frontage.

 

The impacts of these non-compliances are considered significant, as there are no similar hardstand spaces in front of existing dwellings on the western side of Robey Street between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street.  Although there are examples beyond that section of the Robey Street streetscape, they do not form part of the streetscape in the vicinity of the site.  Setting a precedent in that part of Robey Street for hardstand car spaces that do not comply with the Preferred Solutions is considered unacceptable.  It is therefore considered that the proposed parking space would dominate and detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape and create an undesirable precedent.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed hardstand carspace to the front of the existing dwelling does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the character of the locality setting a poor precedent for residential development.

 

It is also noted that the construction of a vehicle crossing would involve the removal of at least one carparking space from Council’s street.  If this pattern were continued along the street, no street parking would be available along Robey Street.

 

For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed provision of a hardstand space forward of the building line is considered to have an adverse impact on the subject part of the Robey Street streetscape. The applicant has not presented an adequate case to justify the need for a non-complying off-street parking space.  As such the proposal cannot be supported in its current form and the original refusal be confirmed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council's original determination of Development Application No. 0181/2003 dated 12 May 2003 to construct a new vehicular crossing and hardstand carparking space at the front of the existing dwelling at 48 Robey Street, Maroubra, be confirmed for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carspace being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.         The proposed hardstand carspace does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure will occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.

 

3.         Due to the inadequate length of the proposed parking space, some vehicles may extend beyond the property boundary and onto Council’s land.  The potential exists for injury by parked vehicles of persons using Council’s land for pedestrian purposes.

 

4.         Approval would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor and inappropriate precedent for that part of the western side of the Robey Street streetscape that is between O’Sullivan Avenue and Chichester Street.

 

5.         The proposal will remove at least one on-street car parking space from Council’s road, which is undesirable and not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Original delegated report

2. Architectural drawings      

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1156/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor addition

PROPERTY:

 4 Wisdom Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 J Scerri

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Freda Backes, Murray Matson and Margery Whitehead.

 

Following the erection of height poles to assess the degree of view loss from 2 Wisdom Street, adjoining to the west of the subject site, the applicant amended the proposal to include the following design changes:

 

·          Lowering the height of the of the proposed new roof and ridge by 800mm to be lower than the first floor balcony of 2 Wisdom Street, thus retaining all ocean views from this level of the building.

·          Reducing the size of the proposed first floor including deleting a bedroom from the proposal.  The proposal now achieves compliance with the floor space ratio (FSR) preferred solution in Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies (DCP).

·          Reducing the overall length of the western wall of the proposed development by 4m and deleting the front entry and stair enclosure. These changes create a view corridor at the rear to Wedding Cake Island from the ground floor living area of 2 Wisdom Street, and substantial retention of existing ocean views from the front of 2 Wisdom Street.

 

Further height poles were erected to demonstrate the impact of these changes, however the objector requests the first floor extent of the western wall be set back a further 2m and removal of the planter from the western edge of the first floor balcony. The applicant has agreed in writing to the deletion of the planter box from the first floor rear balcony and the relocation of the balustrade to the east.  The applicant considers, however, that the further design changes as proposed by the objector will prejudice the feasibility and functionality of the design.

           

There is no doubt that the panoramic ocean view currently available internally and from the balconies of 2 Wisdom Street will continue to be enjoyed as a result of the applicant’s amended design.  The ground floor of 2 Wisdom Street is the level from which the main view loss is of issue.  The expansive view to the ocean, Wedding Cake Island and the Coogee Headland are retained through the northern windows by way of the applicant’s amended proposal.  Similarly, the view to the ocean available from the front room at 2 Wisdom Street remains substantially intact as a result of the amendments made by the applicant.  It is considered that a fair sharing of views has been made by the applicant in his amended design.

 

Solar access to 2 Wisdom Street is in accordance with the requirements of the DCP, while the level of overlooking from the first floor addition and balcony reflect those existing for surrounding development.

 

 

The amended proposal represents an upgrade to a dwelling in poor condition, without unreasonable impacts to its neighbours.  Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The amended application proposes alterations to the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new first floor, external front stairs and balconies and includes the following:-

 

Basement level

·          Extension of the basement to the full width and length of the dwelling above for the parking of two cars, and manoeuvring area to allow their egress from the site in a forward direction.

·          New internal stairs to the ground floor.

 

Ground floor level

·          Internal configuration changes and new fenestration to the eastern elevation and new glazed doors on the northern elevation leading from the lounge area to the existing rear patio.

·          Extension (approximately 2m) to the front (south) of the building on its eastern side to form an office/study with entry from the front hallway.  A balcony is proposed at the front (south) of the new office

·          New front porch on the western side of the building (southern elevation).

·          New internal stairs to the first floor.

 

First floor level

 

·          New first floor consisting of a family room opening onto a rear (north) balcony, bathroom, Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 1 with ensuite and walk-in-robe.

·          Balcony to the front (south) opening from Bedroom 1.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Wisdom Street, Coogee and is identified as Lot 1 in DP 986455 and is slightly irregular in shape, having a total site area of 383.5m2 approximately.  Existing on the site is a single level dwelling house constructed partly over a garage with a pool located in the rear yard (see Figure 1).  The site falls from the rear to Wisdom Street at the front and has a cross fall of approximately 2.5m west to east.

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Wisdom Street

 

 

Located on the adjoining site to the west (2 Wisdom Street) is a two storey dwelling house (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

 

Figure 2 – 2 Wisdom Street adjoining the subject site to the west

 

Located on the adjoining the site to the east (6 Wisdom Street) is a single level dwelling house partly located above a garage level in alignment with the street (see Figure 3).

 

 

Figure 3 – 6 Wisdom Street adjoining the subject site to the east

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 9th December, 2002 and was notified until the 8th January, 2003.

 

As a result of the notification and advertising of the application, two objections were received (2 Wisdom Street and 47 Denning Street), particularly relating to view loss from the concerned properties.  Site inspections from objectors’ properties were undertaken by Council’s officer to ascertain the degree of view loss resulting from the proposed development.

 

A preliminary assessment was undertaken of the application and the applicant was notified by letter dated the 18th February, 2003 of outstanding issues and additional information requirements.

 

In response to Council’s letter a meeting was held with the applicant on the 31st March, 2003 to discuss outstanding issues.  At this meeting, the applicant agreed to erect height poles to clarify the degree of view loss from objectors’ properties.

 

Following the erection of height poles, a further inspection was undertaken from 2 Wisdom Street, the property most affected, with the applicant, objector and the objector’s planning consultant, Michael Neustein.

 

As a result of the view loss issues raised at the site meeting by the adjoining neighbours to the west (2 Wisdom Street), the applicant agreed to revise the proposal to address their concerns.

 

An amended application was lodged on the 29th July, 2003 and re-notified until the 20th August, 2003, with letters of objection received from the owners of 2 Wisdom Street. 

 

The applicant, in response to the request by 2 Wisdom Street, erected further height poles to assess the degree of view loss from their property.  A further site inspection by Council Officer’s was undertaken at 2 Wisdom Street with Councillor Matson, the applicant, the objector and the objector’s planning consultant on the 10th September, 2003.

 

At this meeting the applicant agreed to further amend the design by deleting the proposed planter on the western elevation of the first floor balcony, and moving the balcony balustrade to the east by 1m to address concerns that the proposed planter and any plantings therein would impede views.

 

The objector’s planning consultant requested the opportunity to redesign the applicant’s proposal to meet the concerns of 2 Wisdom Street.  The applicant agreed to evaluate and consider possible further design changes.  The proposed revisions by Michael Neustein were received by Council on the 17th September, 2003 as an item of information.

 

The applicant has advised that the proposed changes to his design, as put forward by Michael Neustein, are unacceptable.  By facsimile, dated the 23rd September, the applicant outlines the significant changes already undertaken to the original proposal to address the concerns of 2 Wisdom Street, and achieve a reasonable compromise acceptable to both parties.  These changes include the following:-

 

·          Lowering the height of the proposed new roof and ridge by 800mm to be lower than the first floor balcony of 2 Wisdom Street.

·          Reducing the size of the proposed first floor including deleting a bedroom from the proposal.

·          Reducing the western wall of the development by 4m to allow a view corridor to Wedding Cake Island for 2 Wisdom Street.

·          Deleting the western planter box from the first floor rear balcony and relocating the balustrade to the east.

·          Removing the enclosure of the front entry and stairs.

 

The applicant states that the further changes proposed by Michael Neustein are unacceptable for the following reasons:-

 

·          The reduction of the western wall by another 2m would give a distance of 380mm from the top of the stairs to the rear wall.  This would be both dangerous for access and impossible to move further up and down the stairs.

·          The proposed relocation of floor area to the eastern side of the building would give an area in the room that is an irregular shape that could not be used (a ‘dead spot’ in the room), and would not provide a location for sliding door access to the rear balcony.

·          The proposed reduction in area of the first floor rear balcony and its change to a ‘straight edge’ is not in keeping with the curvilinear design of the building.

·          The proposed ground floor changes are unnecessary as the existing walls and roof area are below the neighbour’s line of sight.  Additional walls to the kitchen and lounge area will close up the room and reduce natural light and ventilation.

·          The proposed re-location of the B-B-Q to the patio limits access to the rear yard from the house.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was notified to the 8th January, 2003, in accordance with Clause 23 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 with two submissions received. Following notification of the amended proposal to the 20th August, 2003, in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification Development Proposals and Council Plans, one submission was received as set out below, and addressed in the main body of the report.

 

5.1  Objection to amended proposal

 

Chris and Phoebe Hoy

2 Wisdom Street

South Coogee   NSW

 

·          Whilst the amended plans improve the design, they do not bring the scheme into line with the local scale of built form nor retain reasonable amenity of 2 Wisdom Street.

·          View loss from the rear living area of 2 Wisdom Street, notwithstanding the increased setback proposed in the amended plans.

·          The proposed planter box to the upper level balcony will also restrict views from both the living and outdoor dining and recreation areas, which are the same floor height as the applicant’s proposed upper level.

·          Loss of ocean views from the front “formal living room”.

·          The reduction in overall height of 0.8m from the original scheme provides some improvement, but request that height poles be erected to enable an accurate assessment.  A flat roof, as provided in the majority of renovated properties in the area, would further reduce the height.

·          The proposal retains a number of windows facing the eastern elevation of 2 Wisdom Street. It is noted in the Statement of Environmental Effects that these generally will be obscure glass, however confirmation is required.  The proposal also has large expanses of north facing windows that will overlook the private open space of 2 Wisdom Street and it is requested that privacy screening be provided on the northern elevation of the upper level balcony.

·          The rear first floor balcony is excessive and not appropriate in this location as it will act as a large entertaining area and generate unacceptable noise levels.

·          Due to building bulk, there will be loss of sunlight to the ground floor level of 2 Wisdom Street and request that the upper level addition be further setback at the rear so that it does not extend past the existing gable.

·          The submitted statement contains a number of inaccuracies and does not provide adequate justification for the non compliances.

·          It is unclear what are the proposed finishes for the roof and western wall of the building and may cause unnecessary glare to 2 Wisdom Street.

·          The applicant may intend to use the property as a dual occupancy.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Landscape Comments

 

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

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site area is less than require for the submission of a master plan (4000m2).

 

8.        RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the 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

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes addressed in Statement of Environmental Effects

Visual impact in keeping with development within the foreshore scenic Protection Area and considered acceptable

 

8.1  Policy Controls

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

 

(please see table starting on next page)

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

 

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

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

 

P4  Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

P5 Building materials, appliances minimise energy requirements.

 

P6  External clothes drying area available.

 

P7  Landscape design assists microclimate management.

 

 

P8  Windows sized to reduce summer heat and permit winter sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

S9  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

S9  North-facing

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Lounge, family room and private open space are orientated to the north maximising solar access

 

 

 

No plant or machinery are proposed as part of this application

 

Solar collectors and photovoltaic cells are not proposed.

 

Proposed rendered brick veneer and glass construction with metal roof

 

External clothes drying available in rear yard

 

No significant change proposed to existing landscaping

 

 

Majority of windows are louvred on the western elevation to provide protection from western sun.  Northern and eastern windows permit winter sun

 

North facing living and family areas receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

O

 

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

 

The design has been amended to minimise loss of solar access to adjoining western neighbour

 

 

The design has been amended to minimise loss of solar access and there is no loss of light to north facing windows between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. - see Environmental Assessment in report

 

 

There is no loss of existing sunlight to neighbour’s principal outdoor areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard construction materials are proposed.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling.

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

 

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

 

S1  Rainwater tanks or other storage systems collect roof run-off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

S3  Landscaped area: contain low water demand plant species and design.

 

 

Stormwater is to be drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter.

 

 

 

A rainwater tank or other storage system is not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Triple A rated fixtures and dual flush toilets addressed by condition of consent.

 

No significant change is proposed to the landscaped area.  Reconfigured garden bed proposed to front of dwelling.  Plant species addressed by condition of consent.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

51.6% of total site provided as landscaped area.

Greater than 160m2 is provided as private open space in the form of a rear yard and pool area.

 

Minimum dimensions are 13.3m x 10.3m.

 

 

Existing private open space is provided in the form of a rear yard

 

Existing site permeability remains substantially unchanged by the proposal.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

Sites

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

 

FSR

 

0.58:1 - see Environmental Assessment in report

 

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

 

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

 

 

 

Wall heights

Western elevation 3.25m to 5.65m

 

East elevation 6.55m to 9m (see Environmental Assessment in report).

 

Design enhances built form and is keeping with character in locality

 

Excavation for basement garage requires maximum cut of 3m on the western side of the existing garage due to site topography

 

 Excavation is located at a greater distance than 900mm of side boundary

 

Excavation is greater than 3m from rear boundary

 

 

Design is acceptable with regard to privacy and natural light – see Environmental Assessment in report

 

Design allows view sharing - see Environmental Assessment in report

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Predominantly maintains existing front setback.  Adjoining development set closer to the street - see Environmental Assessment in report

 

Rear Setback

 

13.4m

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

910mm (eastern elevation) side

 

 

1.53m-1.79m (western elevation)

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

S1, 2, 3  Front doors visible from street.

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

Windows on the western elevation are shown as obscure glass

 

Windows on eastern elevation overlook predominantly solid wall of house on adjoining property.

 

 

Direct view to west screened by planter. Direct views to north –east and north-west not screened

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front balconies can be viewed from street. Rear balconies overlooked by surrounding properties - see Environmental Assessment section in report

 

 

 

 

Front door visible from street and readily identifiable

 

Windows of habitable rooms overlook the street

 

Street number displayed by condition of consent

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 car spaces provided and capable of complying with minimum dimensions.

 

Existing vehicular driveway maintained and has minimum width of 3m and maximum width at boundary of 3m.

 

FORESHORE DEVELOPMENT

Building form, colours, materials and finishes are sympathetic to surrounding natural forms.

 

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated to reflect human scale.

 

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.

 

 

Proposed building form, materials and finishes are in keeping with surrounding development and relates to the natural topography.

 

The proposed building is sufficiently articulated to reflect human scale.

 

The amended design is considered to allow a fair sharing of views.  Rear setback allows planting

 

8.2  Development Control Plan - Parking

Parking

Land use.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Dwelling house

2 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1   Floor Area

 

The amended proposal has a total gross floor area of 223.6m2 equivalent to a FSR

 of 0.58:1 and is below that permissible for the site (0.6:1).  The FSR calculation includes both living areas and total balcony area in excess of 40m2 in accordance with the definition of gross floor area as contained within the DCP.  It does not include however, the garage area although in excess of 40m2, as the additional area is required for turning movements necessary for vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction.  This is in accordance with a recent Land and Environment Court Judgement (Brian Meyerson Architects v Randwick City Council – 7 May 2003).

 

The amended proposal has been considerably reduced in bulk and scale, with a reduction in floor area of 44m2 approximately when compared with the original proposal. The original non compliance (0.69:1) with the preferred solutions for floor area is now at 0.58:1 below the maximum permissible under the preferred solutions (0.6:1). 

 

The amended proposal, when compared to that originally proposed, results in the loss of a bedroom at the first floor level and a reduction in building length along the eastern elevation to the rear undertaken by the applicant to retain the view to Wedding Cake Island from the ground floor living area of 2 Wisdom Street.  The building bulk to the street front (southern elevation) has also been reduced by deleting the proposed covered front entry and retaining a similar building setback as currently existing.  This significantly alleviates view loss from the front ground floor room at 2 Wisdom Street adjoining the subject site to the west.

 

The building bulk is considered compatible in scale with recent development in the locality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, especially evident in Alexandria Parade adjoining Wisdom Street to the east.  As well, the two storey form of 2 Wisdom Street is set higher than the proposed development with the proposed roof ridge of 4 Wisdom Street being 3.26m below that of 2 Wisdom Street.  This provides a ‘step’ in the built form consistent with the topography of the area. 

 

It is considered that the impacts of bulk have been satisfactorily addressed in the amended plans and the effects on the neighbouring properties minimised as discussed later the report.

 

9.2   Height, Form and Materials

 

The proposed overall building height, as originally submitted, has been reduced by 800mm, with a change of roof form to a curved profile, and the proposed first floor addition in approximate alignment with the ground floor footprint. 

 

On the western elevation, the proposed external wall height of the first floor addition (3.25m to 5.65m) is in accordance with the preferred solution (7m) and it is only on the eastern elevation that the proposed external wall height (5.88m to 9m) presents as a variation to the preferred solution.  This variation relates to the significant fall in topography (2.5m approximately) of the site down the hill from west to east.

 

As well as the low profile curved roof, the amended proposal provides minimal floor to ceiling height (2.4m) for the first floor addition, to alleviate the impacts of overshadowing and natural light access to neighbouring residents.

 

The dwelling house on the adjoining property to the east has only one window (a bedroom window) located on its wall immediately adjacent to its western boundary with the subject site.  Accordingly, the variation proposed to the eastern wall height of the proposed development is considered to have minimal impact on the adjacent property to the east.

 

Although there will be some water view loss to the adjoining property to the west as a result of the first floor addition, the degree of view loss is considered to be minimised by the reduction in the extent of the first floor addition to the rear.  As previously noted, the wall height on the western elevation is well under the maximum permissible under the preferred solutions.

 

The request for a flat roof as put forward in the objection would not substantially lower the overall height of the proposal, as the curved roof springs from a generally accepted minimum ceiling height for habitable rooms (2.4m) on both the eastern and western elevations and has a maximum rise at its centre of approximately 300mm.  If a flat roof was proposed, an allowance in height would still have to be made for roofing timbers, a grade for drainage and possibly a parapet to ensure satisfactory aesthetics.

 

The living area of the objector’s property has glazing to the north and accordingly, it is considered that the impact on natural light to this area from the first floor addition does not warrant refusal of the application.  The objector’s concern that the finishes used on the roof and western wall may cause unnecessary glare are addressed by a condition of consent contained in the recommendation requiring the proposed rendered brick work to be painted a neutral colour, with the metal roof powder coated also in a neutral tone so as not to cause glare.

 

It is considered that the proposed first floor addition and alterations proposed will enhance the building’s appearance and is compatible with the newer development currently being undertaken in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  The proposed building height is therefore considered consistent with the objectives for height, form and materials as contained in the DCP and is acceptable.

 

9.3   Building Setbacks

 

As stated previously in the report, the amended proposal has cut-back the bulk of the building to the street front (south) by deleting the covered entry from the proposal.  This considerably improves the ocean outlook for 2 Wisdom Street from their front room.  The front setback of the amended proposal adopts a similar setback as the existing dwelling house and is therefore considered consistent with the prevailing street setbacks and will maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

The proposed minimum rear setback of 13.4m approximately is well in excess of the minimum rear setback (4.5m) under the preferred solutions.  It is considered that the rear setback allows the adjoining properties access to natural light and a share of views and is generally consistent with the setback of the adjoining properties (see the section on view sharing below).

 

The proposal has setbacks to the eastern side boundary between 1.53m and 1.79m for the first floor addition and a side setback to the western boundary of 910mm.  These side setbacks are not in accordance with the preferred solutions being 3m and 1.5m respectively.

 

The proposed western setback maintains the existing ground floor wall line to the western boundary, while offsetting the existing wall line on the eastern elevation by 665mm.  The proposal is considered acceptable, as it is considered that no significant detrimental impact results to neighbouring buildings in terms of overshadowing (see later section in report).

 

9.4   View Sharing

 

The primary concern throughout the assessment of this application has been the requirement under Clause 4.3.3 of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies that “buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.  Accordingly height poles were erected by the applicant, both in regard to the original and amended proposal, to demonstrate the likely loss of view from 2 Wisdom Street. 

 

It should be noted that the views from first floor rooms and the associated two first floor balconies of 2 Wisdom Street remain intact with respect to the proposed development.

 

The areas of perceived view loss relate to the living room on the ground floor rear of the dwelling house at 2 Wisdom Street and the front room, described in the objector’s letter as a ‘formal living room’ but not currently used for this purpose, as noted on the site inspection.

 

The issue of view loss from the ground floor living area at the rear of 2 Wisdom Street is identified by the objector as resulting from the northern extent of the western wall and the planter on the proposed first floor rear balcony.

 

The western first floor wall has been reduced in length from 16.47m in the original design to 12.64m in the amended design, with the northern termination of this wall now in line with the existing northern end of the main area of the dwelling house (excluding the existing laundry addition).  The difference in the northern end positions of the western wall between the original and amended proposals can be seen in Figures 4 and 5 below.

 

 

Figure 4 - Original position of the northern end

of the first floor wall taken from the living area of 2 Wisdom Street

 

 

Figure 5 - Amended position of the northern end of the first floor wall

 taken from the living area of 2 Wisdom Street

 

As demonstrated in the photographs above, the view to Wedding Cake Island from the northern living room window, the primary view focus, that was partly obstructed by the original proposal is entirely retained in the amended proposal.

 

The objectors have put forward by way of a design undertaken by their planning consultant, that the northern end of the western wall should be relocated a further 2m to the south, with a more acute angle proposed to the northern (rear) wall of the first floor addition, in order to further increase the angle of view available from the living area of 2 Wisdom Street.  The living room of 2 Wisdom Street has two windows in the eastern wall. The potential increase in ocean view through the window at the northern end of the eastern elevation of 2 Wisdom Street is demonstrated in the photograph below (Figure 6).  While the further relocation of the western wall of the proposed first floor addition may also increase the degree of view to Wedding Cake Island from a sitting position at the southern end of the living area, this is considered to be an unreasonable expectation. 

 

The applicant has put forward reasons why the amendments proposed by the objector to the applicant’s design of the living room and first floor balcony is considered unreasonable and are listed below:-

 

·          The reduction of the western wall by another 2m would give a distance of 380mm from the top of the stairs to the rear wall.  This would be both dangerous for access and impossible to move further up and down the stairs.

·          The proposed relocation of floor area to the eastern side of the building would give an area in the room that would is of an irregular shape that could not be used, that is ‘dead spot’ in the room, and would not provide a location for sliding door access to the rear balcony.

 

Given the quality of view retained through the northern living room windows of 2 Wisdom Street, it is considered that the further relocation of the western wall by 2m as proposed by the objector is unreasonable, as it limits the useability of the first floor family room, imposes a design configuration not sought by the applicant and restricts functionality, especially of the stairs.  The applicant has clearly demonstrated a commitment to view sharing in the amended proposal, and further restriction on the building envelope by the objector is considered unreasonable and unsustainable. 

 

A further area of concern to the view obtained from the living area of the objector’s dwelling house is the restriction of view across the proposed planter located on the western edge of the first floor rear balcony.  At the site inspection of the amended height poles, the applicant and the objector agreed to the removal of the planter from the northern edge of the balcony and the location of the balcony balustrade 1m to the east of the western edge of the balcony.  This commitment by the applicant has been confirmed in writing and an appropriate condition of consent is contained within the recommendation.

 

 

 

Figure 6 - View from the eastern window at the northern end

 of the living area of 2 Wisdom Street.  The area of further

potential view is hatched.

 

The issue of view loss from the front ground floor room at the southern end of 2 Wisdom Street is not considered substantial (see Figure 7 below) as a major portion of the ocean vista is retained from this room, notwithstanding its functionality.

 

 

Figure 7 - View from the window of the front room

 at the southern end of 2 Wisdom Street

 

9.5   Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

An objection from 2 Wisdom Street has been received regarding overlooking to the private open space from the proposed rear first floor balcony and north facing windows.  The objector considers that the proposed balcony is excessive and not appropriate in this location.

 

Existing within the immediate area are a number of properties that overlook each others private open space, including a second storey balcony at the objector’s property that overlooks the pool and private open space of the subject property.  Similarly, the elevated deck of 41 Denning Street adjoining 2 Wisdom Street to the west overlooks the private open space of both 2 and 4 Wisdom Street, while to the rear a roof terrace of an adjoining development in Alexandria Place overlooks the private open space of surrounding properties.  This is a highly urban environment where each property seeks an outlook to the ocean to the east, and this is the primary orientation of people within habitable rooms and also those utilising private open space, decks and balconies.  Accordingly, the subject property is at more of a disadvantage of being overlooked by properties to the west than those properties that orientate the outlook from their windows, balconies and private open space across the subject property.  It is therefore considered that the issue of overlooking is unsustainable in the context of the site and its surrounds.

 

The proposed planter box along the western elevation of the first floor rear balcony that was proposed in order to introduce privacy screening for both 2 and 4 Wisdom Street, has been deleted from the proposal by the applicant at the request of 2 Wisdom Street.  However it is considered that the trafficable area along the western elevation of the deck could be further reduced by deleting the proposed under cover BBQ at its northern end.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the recommendation.

 

Noise issues relating to the use of the proposed first floor rear balcony are considered to be not significantly different than those that would occur at the existing ground floor patio level, nor from those that may transpire from the elevated decks, balconies and terraces on surrounding properties.  The events that may cause some disturbance to aural privacy are likely to be infrequent and therefore the objection cannot be sustained.

 

An additional matter relates to the objector’s request for confirmation that the proposed windows in the western elevation of the subject dwelling house will be obscure glass.  Obscure glass for these windows is noted on the plans, however, a condition of consent reinforcing the plan detail is contained within the recommendation.

 

9.6   Overshadowing

 

Loss of sunlight to the ground floor level of 2 Wisdom Street has been raised as an issue.  Shadow diagrams have been supplied by the applicant that demonstrate that although their will be a loss of solar access to the east facing living room windows, full solar access to north facing living room windows is maintained throughout the day between 9.00am and 3.00pm at mid winter.  It is considered therefore, that the proposal does not breach any requirements of Clause 3.1.2 of the DCP.  Nevertheless, it is estimated that the most northern of the east facing windows will receive solar access approximately at 10.00 am on the 21 June (the worst case scenario).  Notwithstanding the additional overshadowing, it is considered that the amended proposal satisfies the requirements of the DCP and is acceptable.

 

9.7   Dual Occupancy

 

It is argued by the objector that the proposed dwelling house may be used as a dual occupancy.  Nothing in the configuration of the proposed design could be interpreted to form this opinion.  Only one kitchen is proposed (that being on the ground floor level) and no cooking facilities or bar are proposed on the first floor level.  An internal staircase runs through the centre of the dwelling house and no external or separate entry is provided to the first floor.  This contention cannot be sustained.

 

9.8   Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and Foreshore Development

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to Clause 29 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) and Clause 4.9 of the DCP and it is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity or the character of the foreshore and will be consistent with surrounding built form and the topography of the area.  As discussed above, the amended proposal is considered to allow a fair sharing of views and is considered acceptable in relation Clause 29 of the LEP and Clause 4.9 of the DCP.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The bulk of the building has been considerably reduced in the amended proposal such that a reasonable sharing of views is obtained for the occupants of 2 Wisdom Street.  The amened proposal now also complies with the preferred FSR for the site and solar access to 2 Wisdom Street is maintained in accordance with the DCP requirements.  The amended proposal improves the streetscape of the building and provides a necessary update of the building in accordance with the needs of the applicant and is considered worthy of approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1156/02/GA for alterations and first floor addition at 4 Wisdom Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans having Project No. 00102 and numbered Page 2, Amendment D, dated 10th July 2003 and received by Council on the 29th July, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2          The rendered walls and metal roof shall be a neutral colour and non reflective, with balcony balustrades transparent.  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 commencement of any building works.

 

3          The first floor rear balcony shall be reduced in length along its western elevation by 1.7m and the BBQ relocated to minimise the trafficable length of the balcony along the western elevation and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the approval of the construction certificate.

 

4          The planter shown on the western edge of the first floor balcony is deleted and the balustrade shall be located 1m to the east of the western edge of the first floor rear balcony to minimise view loss from 2 Wisdom Street.  Details of such shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the approval of the construction certificate.

 

5          Windows on the western elevation shall be opaque glass to ensure satisfactory levels of privacy.

 

6          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.

 

7          The fence on the street alignment and on the side boundaries in front of the building line are to be a maximum height of 1.8m and designed so that the upper two thirds are at least 50% open at any point, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.  Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

8          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.

 

9          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.

 

10        All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

12        A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

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

 

14        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 conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

15        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.

 

16        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 noted in the construction certificate application.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

17        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or a suitably designed absorption pit and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Absorption pits or soaker wells must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

22        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 / Notice of Intention to commence building work.

 

23        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:

 

24        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.

 

25        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.

 

26        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.

 

27        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, verandahs, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon:

 

a)         all of the premises adjoining the subject site to the west.

 

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.

 

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:

 

28        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.

 

29        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.

 

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

 

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

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon, shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate or, upon finalisation of works if no occupation certificate is issued.

 

31        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.

 

32        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.

 

33        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.

 

34        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.

 

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        The use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum), Monday to Friday inclusive and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

37        Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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 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        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.

 

45        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.

 

46        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.

 

47        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.

 

48        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.

 

49        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”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety.

 

51        All hazardous or intractable wastes and materials (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001; and

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

52        Prior to demolition of any building constructed before 1970, the person acting on this consent shall submit a Work Plan prepared in accordance with Australian Standards AS260-2001, Demolition of Structures by a suitably qualified person.  The Work Plan shall outline the identification of any hazardous materials, including materials containing asbestos and surfaces coated with lead paint and the plan should detail the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to ensure public safety and to minimise any dust nuisance and methods of disposal of any hazardous materials.  A copy of the work plan is to be forwarded to the Council prior to commencing such works.

 

53        The removal, cleaning and disposal of any lead-based paints must be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures, The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the requirements and guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

55        The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

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.

 

A2       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specifications must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

22 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/1167/2002 'A'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Application to modify the proposed materials, finishes and architectural style of the approved building

PROPERTY:

 19 Torrington Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Edifice Design Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is referred to Committee as the original development application was determined by the Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting of 13 May 2003.

 

The proposed modifications will result in a building that has a more contemporary appearance than that originally approved. The changes include the removal of a pitched roof in favour of a skillion profile hidden behind a parapet and changes to the treatment of balconies and  elevations.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes minor amendments to the approved development which initially comprised of alterations and additions to enlarge the existing attached dual occupancy on the site.

 

The amendments seek to modify the elevations and roof form of the proposal to result in a more contemporary appearance. The modifications include the following changes:

§   Removal of pitched roof form in favour of a skillion profile, concealed from Torrington Road, Duncan Street and the rear of the property by  a parapet wall.

§   Removal of rendered masonry balcony structures with decorative metal balustrading in favour of structural steel balconies incorporating louvred aluminium sunshading and glazed balustrading.

§   Curved feature windows in Torrington Road elevation removed in favour of rectangular frames to match the remainder of the building.

§   Vertical projecting façade panels will be ‘squared off’ to reflect the parapet, previously these elements were shaped to reflect the pitched roof.

§   A parapet will be provided to the garage structures, carports will be covered by a skillion roof profile to match the changes to the main building.

 

Minor internal changes to the ground floor bathroom configuration to provide a laundry to both units are also proposed. An external door to each laundry is provided on the eastern and western elevations at ground floor level. At first floor level, the bathroom and ensuite will be reconfigured to provide a bath in the main bathroom (previously only a shower was shown), resulting in an ensuite with shower only (previously a bath was indicated to this room). No objections have been received to this application and as such, these internal changes have been made the subject of a separate application (1167/02 ‘B’) in order to expedite the assessment process under delegated authority.

 

The amendments will result in a reduction in the overall height of development on the site and will not result in any increase to the building footprint, FSR or number of dwellings on the site.

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site consists of a regular-shaped, corner allotment that has three street frontages. The site has a street address to Torrington Road of 13.41 metres. The northwestern side boundary of the site adjoins Duncan Street and measures 40.235 metres. The rear (southwestern) boundary of the site adjoins The Corso and measures 13.41 metres. The southeastern boundary of the site adjoins 21 Torrington Road, a two storey dwelling. The site area is 539.5m2.

 

Existing on the site is a part single storey, part two storey attached dual occupancy. The building has been strata titled (SP20504). To the rear of the site is an outbuilding containing a toilet and storage area. On the rear boundary is a double garage with access to The Corso.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by large, detached dwelling houses constructed in a variety of architectural styles. Across Duncan Street to the west are a single and two storey dwellings including 6 Duncan Street (a heritage item). Across Torrington Road and The Corso there are also large freestanding dwellings typical of the immediate area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Application 02/1167/GD was approved by the Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting of 13 May 2003. The applicant lodged a section 96 application to modify the appearance of the building by changing the architectural treatment and proposed materials of balconies, incorporate a curved roof form and curved parapets on July 23, 2003.

 

In response to concerns raised by Council in relation to the mix of curved and linear building forms and the predominance of horizontal elements in the proposed changes, the applicant provided amended architectural plans on 16 September 2003. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

Around the same time as the amendments were lodged, a second section 96 application (1167/02 ‘B’) was lodged showing only the internal modifications proposed in order to allow for these elements to be considered under delegated authority. No objection is raised to these internal modifications and assessment of this application will precede this meeting of the Committee.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original plans were notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.    P & T Simos, 4 Duncan Street, Maroubra

 

§ Metal roof will be exposed along Duncan Street, a parapet treatment should be incorporated to ensure roof is not exposed.

Comment: The amended plans show a parapet to Duncan Street.

 

§ All dwelling roofs in the vicinity of the site are tiled, a curved metal roof is inappropriate and does not meet the objectives of the 2(a) zone.

Comment: The parapet treatment proposed has reduced the visibility of the roof. The curved roof has been removed in favour of a skillion profile, however the parapet will be the dominant feature. Parapets are a common feature on more recent buildings in the vicinity.  The applicant has agreed to include a condition that will ensure that the proposed roof materials will not be reflective

 

§ Aluminium louvres proposed (along with metal roof) will result in reflection and glare.

Comment: The louvres occupy a small section of the upper floor balcony to provide shading to 19 Torrington Road. The existing consent requires that trees be planted along the naturestrip along Duncan Street, the trees and the small area of the louvres will ensure that excessive glare does not result from the proposal. The amendments made to the plans provide a parapet to the metal roof which will reduce the potential for glare and reflection from this structure.

 

§ Heritage impact of changes on 6 Duncan Street, Maroubra (a Heritage Item).

Comment: Council’s Heritage Officer has raised no objection to the proposed changes.

 

2.    K.R. Saville, 10 Duncan Street, Maroubra

 

§ Applicant’s statements that changes are ‘minor’ are misleading.

Comment: This assessment has not relied on the applicant’s statements in isolation. The proposal reduces overall height and has no affect on the approved FSR and the general form of the building remains as approved.

 

§ Proposed changes are inconsistent with the surrounding properties.

Comment: Amendments made to the scheme are consistent with the diverse scale, design and character of properties in the immediate area.

 

§ The use of steel and metal on the building and garages will result in solar reflection to surrounding properties.

Refer to comment above.

 

The amendments received on 16 September 2003 were not renotified to surrounding properties as the changes made were minor and of lesser impact than the previously notified scheme.

 

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       Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has not prepared detailed comments on the application, however referral was made due to the development being located nearby a heritage item on Duncan Street. Council’s Heritage Planner has noted that no objection is raised to the proposed changes to the form, materials and finishes of the development.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

There are no master planning requirements as the site has an area less than 4,000m2.

 

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 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. As the proposal will not change the height, FSR or landscaped area of the development, further consideration of these standards is not required in this instance.

 

Clause 43 of the LEP requires Council to consider the impact of any proposal on the heritage value of items in the vicinity of the site. Council’s Heritage Planner has raised no objection to the proposed changes in relation to the heritage item at 6 Duncan Street. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Clause 43 of the LEP.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The development maintains the compliance of the existing approval with the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1       Substantially the same

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The application will result in a building that will be substantially the same as the approved development, being a two-storey attached dual occupancy with associated parking. The modifications proposed are cosmetic and will not affect the floorspace or footprint of the building as previously approved. The changes will result in a building with a more contemporary appearance and although traditional residential details such as the pitched roof have been removed, the building will be well articulated to minimise bulk and give the development a residential scale. The overall height of the building will be reduced as a result of the proposal.

 

The proposal is considered to result in a development that is “substantially the same” as that originally approved, and therefore may be considered by Council under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2       Consideration of submissions

 

All submissions received in relation to the application have been addressed under section 5.1.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1     Desired Future Character

 

The site is located in area of mixed character. Dwellings have been constructed over a wide time period and range from the heritage listed 1930’s bungalow at 6 Duncan Street to more contemporary two storey dwellings.

 

The building has incorporated design elements that provide residential scale such as balconies. The amended plans, received on September 16, 2003 have removed curved elements that were considered to detract from the overall presentation of the building. The amendments show a simplified, contemporary treatment to the elevations, which is consistent with recently constructed dwellings in the area. The walls of the development will be of a rendered finish (as per the existing approval), lightweight metal balconies and shading structures are proposed to provide a balance to the solid masonry appearance of the building. The steel structures have strong vertical emphasis and the amended plans have narrowed these structures to increase their verticality and improve the balance between horizontal and vertical elements on the elevation.

 

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

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications will change the character of the approved building from a traditional presentation to a more contemporary design. The changed architectural treatment of the facades maintains balcony areas to each of the units and uses projected and recessed elements to provide articulation and visual interest.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and may therefore be approved by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.. 1167/2002 on property 19 Torrington Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

1.       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA1a-DA5a and DA7a, dated August 2002 and received by Council on 14 March 2003, plan numbered DA6 and DA13 dated November 2002 and received by Council on 12 December 2002 and two sheets of amended draft strata plans stamped received by Council on 31 March, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered DA1b- DA7b of Job Number 0289 dated Aug 2002 and stamped received by Council on 16 September, 2003, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans

 

Condition 42 added to read:

 

42.      Any proposed roof materials shall not be reflective. Details of compliance shall be provided with the construction certificate.:

 

Advisory Conditions

 

1.         The applicant must still comply with all original conditions of consent 1167/02.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

29 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D0397/2002/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to change overall balcony depth and width, delete garden sheds, alter roof materials and alterations to finishes and dimensions.

PROPERTY:

 18a Figtree Ave, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Peter Dunkley

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Judy Greenwood, Margery Whitehead and Murray Matson.

 

The Section 96 application seeks retrospective approval for modifications to the approved plans undertaken during construction. The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and several letters of objection were submitted. The principal concerns raised, as part of these objections, related to non-compliance with the original consent and that not all the variations from the approved plans having been included in this application, an increase in overshadowing, solar access, loss of privacy, stormwater impacts and errors in the plans.

 

It is considered that the majority of the variations to the approved plans do not have any amenity impact to neighbouring properties however the design of the building including the finishes to the roof which are sought to be approved as part of this application cannot be supported. Under a Section 96 modification to consent, Council is unable to part approve, part refuse an application therefore an outright refusal of the modification has to be made.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed modifications detailed in the application are as follows:

 

1.         Correct a dimensional error in relation to the front section of roof to the bedroom. Brick veneer changed to timber framing.

2.         Internal lining changed.

3.         To the front entry the double doors approved to enter the dwelling to be converted to single doors.

4.         To the front gate the pier dimensions are to be altered.

5.         The front gates are to be deleted.

6.         Rear first floor balcony depth reduced to 1470mm, overall length of the balcony increased by 200mm

7.         New garden beds added to front of dwelling.

8.         Rear garden sheds are to be deleted.

9.         Pool length is to be increased.

10.       Paving materials changed from that approved.

11.       The roof tiles are to be changed in colour to custom orb slate grey.

12.       Privacy screen off rear deck reduced to 1000mm.

 

There are other unauthorised works which have been undertaken during construction and are being investigated by Council’s regulatory officers and are not the subject of this application.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site contains a semi-detached dwelling house, with a recently constructed first floor addition. The approved built form is contemporary in architectural style, which differs from the adjoining semi detached dwelling however as approved did not intend  to detract so substantially from the integrity of the adjoining dwellings. The finishes and materials of the dwelling have been modified from that approved such that the two dwellings no longer relate to each other and the resultant effect is a pair of visually conflicting semi-detached dwellings.

 

The surrounding locality is made up of semi-detached and fully detached dwelling houses of a consistent scale.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Approval was granted subject to amended plans on the 18 November 2002. This approval was subject to 44 conditions of consent. Several of these conditions further amended the plans by reducing the height of fences, providing privacy screens, ensuring the finishes matched the existing attached dwelling and increasing the ground floor side setback.

 

A Section 96 ‘A’ was lodged on the 10 December 2002 reinstating a lap pool that was deleted as part of the  approved amended plans. This was approved with additional conditions on the 16 January 2003.

 

A Section 96 ‘B’ was lodged on the 12 December 2002 requesting deletion of Condition 40 of the original determination, which related to protection of a street tree. The deletion of this condition was approved on the 16 January 2003.

 

A Section 96 ‘C’ was lodged on the 10 April 2003 seeking to construct the first floor wall closer than 1500mm from the side boundary. This modification was seeking retrospective approval. This application was withdrawn on the 2 May 2003.

 

The current section 96 ‘D’ was lodged on the 4 June 2003.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

W Upton

13 Figtree Ave

 

·          The renovated semi is totally out of character with the street and the adjacent semi.

 

Comment

 

The subject semi-detached dwelling is inconsistent with the finishes of the adjoining semi and the character of the streetscape. The building has been completed including the finishes which were not approved by Council. Modification to some of the finishes is sought as part of this application specifically the modification of the roof to custom orb slate grey. This finish is considered unacceptable, as discussed further under environmental assessment section of this report, and on these grounds this amendment is recommended for refusal.

 

R Stinson

39 Cowper St

 

·    The section 96 seeking retrospective approval is contrary to the intention of the Act.

 

Comment

 

The only option for seeking approval of works retrospectively is through section 96. The application is not contrary to the Act.

 

·    The section 96 does not cover all the variations from the approved plans.

 

Comment

 

Council is only able to consider what is submitted as part of an application. Independent to this application Council’s regulatory officers are considering any other unauthorised works and site management issues.

 

·    The s96 plan is not accurate

 

Comment

 

The plans submitted with the s96 application are ambiguous and include many variations some specifically noted and others that are not. Accuracy as an issue is not being pursued, as Council is unable to support the modifications as sought by this application.

 

·    The builder despite Council conditions has attempted to construct a contemporary semi.

 

Comment

 

The applicant has constructed the dwelling with a significant number of variations from the approved plans and imposed conditions of consent. Some of these variations have been approved retrospectively under previous applications however the greater majority of works which have resulted in a dwelling that is not consistent with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling or the character of the streetscape have not been approved. Council does not support this inconsistency between the two attached dwelling houses and as such is recommending refusal of the modifications.

 

AC Pointing

26 Figtree St

 

No specific objection was raised rather a discussion on the appropriateness of the type of Section 96 application that has been submitted. The points raised were neither relevant nor valid to the current application.

 

PJ Murtagh

18 Figtree Ave

 

·    Concern that the application is seeking retrospective approval.

 

Comment

 

Retrospective approval can be granted under Section 96 modification to consent. Council must be satisfied that the proposal remains substantially the same from that originally approved and not have an adverse impact. The modification and the proposal are not supported.

 

·    The applicant constructed a contemporary development giving no regard to the requirements of council.

 

Comment

 

A number of conditions of consent and amended plans were not adhered to during construction. The unauthorised works are being dealt with by Council’s regulatory officers and are not a matter for consideration under this application. The application through his own private certifier has been fined and served with a series of orders during the course of the construction.

 

·    The building does not relate to the adjoining semi

 

Comment

 

This matter has been covered previously within this report.

 

·    During construction damage to adjoining properties has occurred

 

Comment

 

This matter should be raised as part of a compliant to Council’s Regulatory section for further investigation.

 

·    Why did Council not require the applicant to drain from his property?

 

Comment

 

A condition of consent was imposed on the original consent (condition 13) requiring storm and surface water to be drained and discharged from the property to the street gutter. This matter should be addressed and complied with under this condition.

 

·    Council must refuse the application so that the owner has to re-build in accordance with the approved plans

 

Comment

 

The application has been considered on its merits. Council’s regulatory officers deal with the matter of compliance with the approval.

 

S Hayes

14 Figtree Ave

 

·    The modifications are not considered to be minor in nature.

 

Comment

 

Most of the individual modifications sought are generally consistent with the approved plans and minor in nature however the cumulative impact of the non-compliances has result in a development that was not originally and is still not considered to be acceptable. The main areas of concern is the visual compatibility of the development and hence compliance with conditions 2 and 9 relating to proposed colours and materials.

 

·    The modifications are considered to have major environmental impact as the dwelling is inconsistent with the adjoining semi.

 

Comment

 

The proposed changes have a streetscape impact which is considered to be significant as has been discussed previously within this report.

 

·    No notification for these modifications was undertaken before they were undertaken the neighbours would have objected to the colour scheme.

 

Comment

 

This modification seeks retrospective approval for the works therefore the notification letter sent on the 23 June 2003 was the notification of the proposal. Most of the changes were picked up as unauthorised works.

 

SW Adams

22 Figtree Ave

 

·    The works have been undertaken in an ad hoc manner and result in an unsympathetic dwelling inconsistent with the adjoining.

 

Comment

 

This matter has been sufficiently addressed previously within this report.

 

·    The first floor front bedrooms being closer that 1500mm affects no. 20 Figtree Ave

 

Comment

 

The reduced side setback is not considered to be a significant reduction to the setback and unlikely to have an adverse amenity impact however the amendment was requested initially to reduce amenity impacts to neighbouring property No. 20 Figtree Ave. The applicant agreed to set the first floor back to allow for a slight improvement in amenity to the adjoining property.

 

On completion the reduction is not considered to be a significant issue however when considered alongside the other variations from the approval the reduction is not supported.

 

·    The northern side wall did not allow for the guttering which is now over no. 18 Figtree

 

Comment

 

This matter was dealt with as part of the original approval through conditions of consent and is not varied as part of this application.

 

·    The external walls are now timber clad not brick veneer

 

Comment

 

The wall construction is not critical as the rendered finish conceals the wall material from the streetscape. Any issue of strength of construction was a consideration for the private certifier.

 

·    The roofing material on the carport as well as the house is corrugated metal out of character with the streetscape

 

Comment

 

A condition was placed on the original consent requiring the roof to match the finish and colour of the adjoining semi. This modification is contrary to this condition and cannot be supported as consistency with the adjoining semi is preferred and variation would result in a proposal not substantially the same as originally approved.

 

JP Fitzgerald

20 Figtree Ave

 

·    No notification of the construction of the swimming pool

 

Comment

 

The application for a construction certificate was notified to adjoining property owners for 21 days from the 16 December 2003.

 

·    Overshadowing as a result of the reduced 1500mm first floor setback

 

Comment

 

The additional shadow cast as a result of the 400mm reduction in the side setback is not significant and not considered to be a significant impact.

 

·    No mention of the 500mm privacy lattice to the dividing fence this is detailed on the plans.

 

Comment

 

This is not going to be approved as part of this application therefore Council’s regulatory officers will continue to pursue any unauthorised works and structures.

 

HM Dalton

11 Figtree Ave

 

·   The modifications have greater than a minimal impact therefore cannot be considered under section 96

 

Comments

 

This matter has been discussed previously within this report.

 

·    How can retrospective approval be sought?

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed within this report.

 

·    The checklist was inappropriately filled out

 

Comment

 

The application is assessed on the plans submitted not the checklist. Council’s checklist only applies to new development applications not modified proposals.

 

·    Not all deviations are covered under this application

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed within this report. Any further non-compliances will be determined by Council’s regulatory officers.

 

·    Insufficient reasons as to why the modifications are being sought

 

Comment

 

As mentioned previously the primary assessment carried out for the application is based on the plans submitted rather than the supporting information.

 

·    1500mm setback has been previously refused why should it be approved this time?

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed within this report.

 

·    The plans appear to be inaccurate

 

Comment

 

This matter has been discussed previously within this report.

 

·    A new shadow diagram should be submitted as part of this application.

 

Comment

 

The application is not being approved with the revised location however it is considered that an increase of 400mm and 150mm will not significantly increase the shadow cast. It will add to the length of the shadow rather than the overall extent of shadow cast and overall will be minor.

 

·    Privacy impacts from the extended deck area

 

Comment

 

The increase in balcony area is minimal and unlikely to significantly increase overlooking. This matter is addressed further under Environmental Assessment.

 

·    The external finishes were not approved.

 

Comment

 

This matter has been discussed previously within this report.

 

·    Façade windows and openings do not relate to what was approved and clash with the adjoining semi

 

Comment

 

This matter has been previously addressed within this report.

 

·    Noise impact from the pool need to be considered

 

Comment

 

This matter was considered under the section 96 ‘A’, which related to swimming pools to which additional conditions of consent relating to the operation were imposed.

 

·    Run off issue from the swimming pool and has the pool be constructed in accordance with Sydney Water requirements

 

Comment

 

This matter was addressed under the previous s96 which approved the swimming pool. A certificate of compliance from Sydney Water has been lodged with Council.

 

·    Could council follow up the increase in height of the fence and enforce the approved height

 

Comment

 

This matter has been addressed previously.

 

·    The role of the PCA should be requestioned

 

Comment

 

Council does not enforce PCAs therefore this matter would need to be raised to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

 

 

C B D’Arcy

2 Figtree Ave

 

·    The dwelling is inconsistent with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling

 

Comment

 

This matter has been discussed previously within this report.

 

·    The applicant is seeking retrospective approval can this be approved under Section 96(2)?

 

Comment

 

This matter has been discussed previously within 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  Building and Construction Issues

 

A history of the unauthorised works was provided, as a memo from Council’s regulatory section, however as the application is being considered on its individual merits not in relation to the legal proceedings of the unauthorised works the details of the memo will not be included in this report. Council has issued a series of warnings and fines for the unauthorised works.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1    Policy Controls

 

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

 

This application for modification of consent relates primarily to a number of changes to building envelope, construction methods and roof finishes of the dwelling house. The proposed alterations to the dimensions of architectural elements will not affect the design in terms of compliance with Council’s preferred solutions as contained with DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Compliance with the preferred solutions contained within the DCP were discussed as part of the original application and its assessment. Relevant discussion on the modifications proposed with this application are provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1       Substantially the same

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Act if “ it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as for which the consent was originally granted before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section’. The development has been modified on several occasions since the original granting of consent by Council. The current application to modify the existing consent must be considered against the development as originally approved.

 

The application is considered to result in a building that will be substantially the same as the previously approved development, being a two storey semi-detached dwelling house. The modifications to the framing and wall construction, alteration to dimensions of openings, rear deck, pool and entry gates and deletion of garden sheds will not have a significant impact on the built form and envelope of the development as currently approved. However the amended roof finish will result in a development that is not consistent with the intention of the original consent where the dwelling was to be sympathetic to the design of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. Due to the changes to the roof finish in particular the slate grey colour the proposal is considered to result in a development that is substantially different from that which was originally approved.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

A number of submissions were lodged as part of the notification period, which have been considered. Discussion is provided under community consultation section of this report.

 

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       Privacy

 

The area of the rear deck off the first floor is altered as part of this proposal. The area of the rear deck is modified by reducing the setback from the southern boundary by 400mm and reducing the overall trafficable area (through a new planter box) but increasing the overall width to 1770mm. The area does not significantly increase overlooking however the perceived impact on the adjoining owners by having the balcony encroach into the side setback needs to be considered. The variation is considered to not be acceptable where the line of the side setback is varied by encroaching into the 1500mm side setback disrupting what would otherwise be a uniform setback for the rear section of the dwelling.

 

The increase in the area of the swimming pool is not considered to have an increase impact on aural privacy as a minor variation to the area will not intensify the use of the pool whereby causing a greater impact.

 

Privacy is not considered to be significant concern or one that would warrant outright refusal of the application.

 

9.2       Overshadowing

 

The footprint of the first floor is altered by this proposal. The setback is reduced from 1500mm to 1100mm and 1350mm. This is not a significant increase and is unlikely to significantly affect the level of overshadowing experienced by adjoining properties, however amended shadow diagrams were not submitted with the application therefore only an estimation can be made as to any likely increase.

 

Additional overshadowing is not considered to be significant and unlikely to unduly affect the amenity of the adjoining property. The impact is not significant and would not warrant outright refusal of the application.

 

9.3       Building Setbacks

 

As has been discussed above the rear first floor deck has been constructed at a reduced side setback as has the front bedroom from that originally approved. There is no real concern for the amended setback from an amenity perspective however as one of the proposed modifications as part of this application is not supported by Council the whole application must be refused.

 

9.4       External finishes

 

The proposed semi-detached dwelling house has been completed with unsympathetic finishes and unauthorised alterations to the front elevation whereby the dwelling is not consistent in built form from the adjoining semi.

 

The original consent was issued with two specific conditions of consent relating to materials and finishes. The first conditions, Condition 2 related to the colours, materials and finishes of the external surface being compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Condition 9 related to the colour and finish of the roof matching the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.  This Section 96 does not seek retrospective approval for the finishes other than for the roof so discussion on the external finishes is restricted to the changes sought to the colour of the roof only.

 

The intent of condition 9 is quite specific and relates to the preferred solutions of the DCP relating to works to a semi-detached dwelling to be consistent with the attached property. A conflicting colour palate is not considered acceptable, and contradictory to condition 9. The variation sought has a significant impact on the quality and character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Council does not support such a significant departure from a consistency in colour scheme from the two semi-detached dwellings. The primary basis for recommending refusal of this modification is as it seeks to modify the approved colours and finishes of the roof beyond what is considered acceptable or substantially the same as what was originally approved.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for refusal. Part of the proposal is considered to not be substantially the same as that originally approved and is considered to have significant streetscape impact, being inconsistent in appearance from the adjoining semi-detached dwelling house. The modifications if approved would result in a development that differed from the intent of the original consent. As Council is unable to part approve part refuse a Section 96 application Council must refuse the application in its entirety when there is one aspect that cannot be support irrespective of whether other modifications sought may be acceptable.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.397/02/GA on property 18A Figtree Ave Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed modification will result in a proposal substantially different from that originally approved therefore under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council is unable to approve the application.

 

2.         The proposed modification to the colour and finish to the roof of the semi-detached dwelling is considered to be inconsistent with objectives and performance requirements of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials in that the modifications are seen to detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling and do not integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

3.         Approval of modifications lodged as part of this application would result in an unacceptable precedent being established in the locality.

 

4.    The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

7 September, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0028/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing and construction of a mixed use residential and commercial building with associated parking

PROPERTY:

 212 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Design Drafting Services P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Freda Backes, Chris Bastic.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey shop and associated out buildings.  The site has access to Alfreda Street via a right of carriageway on the title of the subject property.  This provides a potential 144m2 of additional floor space that otherwise would not be available for development purposes, although this area of right of carriageway cannot be effectively utilised for building purposes.  The building in the original application encroached over the air space of the right of carriageway but this has been removed in the amended application before Council.

 

An objection has been received from the adjoining property to the west (206-210 Coogee Bay Road) concerning the right of way that they claim to enjoy over the subject site, as well as amenity impacts to the residential unit (Unit 2) on the eastern side of their building.

 

Legal investigation reveals that 206-210 Coogee Bay Road does not benefit from a right of way over the subject property and accordingly the contention by the objector in this regard cannot be sustained.

 

Amenity impacts to unit 2 of 206-210 Coogee Bay Road involve the loss of light, air and views, to the entry verandah/porch of the unit, which is built adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject site. Impacts are caused by the proximity of the walls of the proposed development.  Although the proposed arrangement is not considered entirely satisfactory, the impacts are considered unlikely to sustain a refusal of the application, especially given the commercial nature of the zoning, which allows buildings to be built to the boundary.  Also the applicant has made an attempt to redesign the proposal and to minimise the impacts.

 

The proposal also has a shortfall of two car parking spaces.  A Section 94 contribution is conditioned for the shortfall in parking associated with the proposed business use.  A condition will ensure that the 3 stacked car spaces provided will be designated for the use of the residential component of the proposed development.  Issues regarding mechanical noise associated with the proposed car stacker have been addressed by appropriate conditions of consent requiring acoustic reports and measures to achieve compliance with relevant environmental noise criteria.

 

Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey shop/ancillary structure to the rear (see Figure 1) and the construction of a part three level building to Coogee Bay Road and four levels to the rear.  The proposed new building is to include a retail shop and three new residential dwellings (1 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 1 bedroom), parking for three (3) cars utilising a turntable and ‘car stacker’ or parking lift, storage and gym/meeting room.  The proposed building layout is detailed below.

 

Lower Ground Floor Plan (RL 3.89)

·          Vehicular and alternative pedestrian entry for residential units at rear of building from Right of Way via panel lift garage door.

·          Vehicular turntable giving access to three car stacking arrangement with one car lifted to the level above (ground floor level) and one car to the level below (basement below ground).

·          Entry corridor and stairs to proposed ground floor above; hot water service and meter room; residential waste storage room; retail waste storage room; and retail dry storage room.

 

Ground Floor (RLs 12.37 and 13.05)

·          Retail shop opening onto Coogee Bay Road (southern elevation) with bi-fold glass panels to the shop front and ramp access.

·          Entry from the eastern side of the shop front at Coogee Bay Road to residential units above via stairs toward the front of the building.

·          Dry store area at rear of shop with internal stair arrangement to lower ground and first floor level.

·          Hallway leading to W.C., three (3) storage rooms and a gym/meeting room at rear of the building.

 

First Floor (RL 15.77)

·          Unit 1 (split level two bedroom unit) containing internal stairs to second floor above and located on the first floor, a kitchen, meals and north facing living room opening onto a terrace (10.8m2 approximately).

·          Unit 2, a one bedroom unit to the rear of the building, containing an entry corridor, bedroom, bathroom, laundry cupboard and an open plan kitchen, meals and living area opening onto a north/east facing balcony (6.09m2 approximately).

 

Second Floor (RL 18.66)

·                Second level of Unit 1 containing a bedroom facing Coogee Bay Road, bathroom and master bedroom with ensuite and north facing balcony (5.5m2 approximately).

·                Unit 3, a one bedroom unit located at the rear of the building, containing an entry corridor, bedroom, bathroom, laundry cupboard and an open plan kitchen, meals and living area opening onto a north/east facing balcony (6.09m2 approximately).

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north side of Coogee Bay Road, three properties to the east of its corner with Brook Street and is identified as Lot 3 in DP 39445 and is irregular in shape, having a total site area of 309m2.  Existing on the site is a single storey shop and ancillary structures, including a metal carport and shed and one storey brick building (see Figure 1).

 

 

Figure 1 - Subject site (formerly Coogee Bay Butchery)

 

The site runs between Coogee Bay Road at its southern end to Alfreda Street to the rear (north) via a right of carriageway on title, with the fall of the land from the front (south) to the rear (north).  The right of way forms a ‘dog’s leg’ from the carport at the rear of the shop and outbuilding, behind and then along the eastern side of the existing three (3) storey residential flat building and garages located on 7-9 Alfreda Street, immediately to the rear of the portion of land containing the shop, outbuilding and carport.

 

Located on the adjoining property to the east on Coogee Bay Road (214-216 Coogee Bay Road – see Figure 1) is two single storey shops located on the one parcel of land and having rear access from Alfreda Street by the right of carriageway as previously mentioned.

 

Located on the adjoining property to the west on Coogee Bay Road (208-210 Coogee Bay Road – see Figure 1) is a two storey strata titled building containing two shops on the ground floor, an office and a residential flat on the second floor.  The residential flat is located on the eastern side of the building immediately adjacent and overlooking the rear of the subject site.

 

 

 

Figure 2 – subject site at rear taken from right of way

 

 

Figure 3 - Colorbond garage roof, residential flat

building (7-9 Alfreda Street)at the rear of the subject site

 and western wall of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road

 

4.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 15th January, 2003 and was advertised and notified until the 12th February, 2003.

 

As a result of the notification and advertising of the application, six (6) objections were received, particularly relating to the encroachment of the proposed development on the right of carriageway forming part of the site and the impact of the proposed development to the adjoining property to the east.

 

A preliminary assessment was undertaken of the application and the applicant was notified by letter dated the 7th February, 2003 of outstanding issues and additional information requirements, particularly for further information and detail regarding the right of way and lack of amenity provided for future occupants of the proposed residential units.

 

Amended plans were lodged with Council on the 10th June, 2003 and advertised and notified until the 9th July, 2003.  As a result of this advertising and notification process one (1) objection was received from the adjoining property to the west (206-210 Coogee Bay Road.

 

Further amendments to the plans were submitted on the 23rd September, 2003, to increase the separation between the two upper levels of the proposed building and removal of the deck at the rear, along with the submission of an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) regarding non compliance with the statutory building height.  Further amended plans were received on the 1st October, 2003 to correct drawing errors.  The amendments to the plans received on the 23rd September and 1st October, 2003 were considered minor and will slightly improve the amenity to the adjoining property, and plans were not further notified and advertised.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original and amended proposal were notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. Following the notification and advertising of the original application, six (6) submissions were received, two of which were from the residents and owners of 206-210 Coogee Bay Road and two on behalf of the owners of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road.  The amended proposal addressed some of the concerns raised in the letters of objection and only one letter of objection was received following the notification and advertising of the amended proposal as listed below.

 

5.1 Objections to original proposal

 

Big Country Developments Pty Ltd

(owner of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road)

P O Box 117

Artarmon 

 

·          The ground and other levels of the proposed development extends over the existing right of carriageway at the rear of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road and will dramatically restrict access especially for the day to day use of the carriageway for the tenants’ truck deliveries and greatly limit options for any future re-development of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road.

 

Comment

 

The amended proposal removes the encroachment over the right of carriageway and no objection was received regarding the amended plans.

 

Denis Ebner Lawyers

(on behalf of Big Country Developments Pty Ltd)

P O Box 1002

Darlinghurst

 

·          The proposed development includes a ground floor garage which extends onto the right of carriageway as well as a proposed first floor balcony that projects over the right of carriageway.  These will greatly restrict access to the rear of 214-216 Coogee Bay Road.

 

Comment

 

As discussed above any encroachment to the right of way was removed by the amended plans.

 

 

A and B Grimshaw

2/208 Coogee Bay Road

Coogee

 

·          The only source of light, sunshine and air to the lovely side verandah and kitchen area of the Unit 2 (on the south-eastern side of the Douglas Flats adjoining the subject site) will be blocked.

·          The view to the coastline will be lost as a result of the proposed development.

Comment

 

The applicant has attempted to address this issue in the amended plans by creating a greater separation between the two buildings on site, hence allowing for more light and solar access to the adjoining property’s verandah.  This issue is addressed in further detail in the Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

L Henry

5/201 Coogee Bay Road

Coogee

 

·          The proposed development will alter the streetscape appearance of Coogee Bay Road and is ill-defined as 2/3 storeys, requiring clarification.

·          Height, traffic, privacy and noise issues need to be considered as they will contribute to a disturbing new trend towards a Bondi Beach situation instead of a peaceful low rise village as required by residents of the area.

 

Comment

 

Issues raised in regard to streetscape, height, noise and traffic and parking are addressed in the Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

Douglas Flats Pty Ltd

206-210 Coogee Bay Road

Coogee

 

·          The applicant has ignored the fact that a residential flat is contained within Douglas Flats and instead has described this building as containing only shops and offices.

·          The balcony and bedroom of the residential flat within Douglas Flats will be entirely blocked by the proposed development thus affecting light, airflow and view.

·          The proposed development results in the construction of a three and a half storey brick wall approximately one metre from the back door and bedroom windows of the residential flat, resulting in a severe restriction of ventilation and air flow.  This is grossly unacceptable as the owners would suffer severe alteration to enjoyment of living in their home and loss of currently existing amenity.

·          The land at 212 Coogee Bay Road is effected by a “right of way” in favour of the land owned by Douglas Flats (206-210 Coogee Bay Road).  The proposed development encroaches on the right of way and would severely impede the rights attaching to and the use and enjoyment of this right of way.  As such the proposal represents an alienation of rights without the consent and authority of Douglas Flats and is illegal in nature.

·          The proposed stack parking raises concerns in relation to its operation and noise from machinery used to operate the stack parking.

 

Comment

 

These issues are addressed in the Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

Cakuva Pty Ltd

G Chan on behalf of Dr J Ting

218 Coogee Bay Road

Coogee

 

·          Laser Cosmetic Day Procedure Surgery (218 Coogee Bay Road) is a day hospital and shares the same back lane off Alfreda Street, which is required to be reasonably clear of obstruction for access for elderly patients that need to be picked up after anaesthetics

·          Access to the garage at 218 Coogee Bay Road should be maintained at all times, especially during the construction phase. 

 

Comment

 

Issues raised regarding retaining clear passage of the right of carriageway is the subject of a condition of consent contained within the recommendation of the report.

 

5.2 Objections to amended proposal

 

Douglas Flats Pty Ltd

206-210 Coogee Bay Road

Coogee

 

·     The proposed development will entirely block and detrimentally affect the light, airflow and physical amenities and view from the balcony and bedroom windows of Unit 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road.

·         The proposed development results in the construction of a three and a half storey brick wall approximately one metre from the back door and bedroom windows of the adjacent property of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road.  This will result in severe restriction of ventilation and airflow and is grossly unacceptable.

·          The proposed development encroaches on the right of way enjoyed by 206-210 Coogee Bay Road and would severely impede the rights attaching to and the use and enjoyment of this right of way.

·          The proposed development would result in alienation of the right of way without the consent and authority of 206-210 Coogee Bay Road and is illegal in nature.

·          The operation of the stack parking in an area which is quite narrow but forms part of the right of way is a matter of concern.

·          Noise associated with the operation of the stack parking facility is of concern and objection is raised to any form of stack parking on the site.

 

Comment

 

The amended plans have specifically aimed to improve the situation to unit No 2 at 206-210 Coogee Bay Road.  This issue is addressed in detail in the environmental assessment section of 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       Landscape Comments

 

The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape design for the Coogee Bay Rd frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Coogee. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.  This is dealt with as a condition of consent and is applicable to all new development fronting Coogee Bay Road.

 

6.2       Drainage Comments

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

6.3       Traffic Comments

 

The EPCD Dept is advised that the AIS believes the proposed development is an over development of the site considering the increased traffic flow in relation to the width and layout of the right of carriageway.

 

The AIS Dept also does not support the use of a vehicle turntable and stack parking to provide off street parking to the site as both the turntable and car stacker are mechanical and are susceptible to failure.

 

Should the EPCD Dept consider approving the proposed development with the vehicle turntable and car stacker then the application should be conditioned with the following requirements:

 

Training of all residents using the car lift and turntable will be required as part of the strata management. The training of the residents is to be conducted by suitably qualified instructor.

 

Details of the car lift operation and safety requirements will have to be included in any contract of sale.

 

The AIS Department does not consider approval of a car lift and car stacker for this site as a precedence for any future development.

 

Comment

 

Council has approved several developments in the city that incorporate car lifts and car stackers.  This proposal is not the first of its kind proposed or approved.

 

6.4       Environmental Health comments

 

The key environmental health related issues are:

 

·        Acoustics

·        Vibration

·        Wastewater disposal

 

The plant and equipment proposed to be installed has the potential to impact on the amenity of neighbours and occupiers of the building.

 

6.41     Acoustics.

 

The following plant and equipment has the potential to compromise the acoustic amenity of neighbours and occupiers of the building

 

·        Vehicle turntable located in the lower ground level parking.

·        The car stacker located in the lower ground level parking.

·        Any proposed mechanical ventilation systems

 

A condition requiring an acoustic report to be prepared addressing this potential is to be included.

 

6.42     Vibration

 

The following plant and equipment has potential to create a vibration nuisance and impact on the amenity of neighbours and occupiers of the building

 

·        Vehicle turntable located in the lower ground level parking.

·        The car stacker located in the lower ground level parking.

·        Any proposed mechanical ventilation systems

 

A condition addressing this potential is to be included.

 

6.43     Wastewater Disposal

 

The proposed development includes the installation of a Wohr Turntable 505 and Parklift 413 in the lower ground level and may involve the installation of oil/water separators with discharge to sewer.

 

Advice was sought from Andrew Bennet, Trade Waste Officer at Sydney Water as to the necessity of these systems. Andrew advised that an oil/water separator is proposed to be installed in the Parklift 413. It is proposed that the water from the separator is to be discharged to stormwater.

 

Discussions with Emma Dowling, Councils Development and Traffic Engineer have revealed that this issue will be conditioned adequately by Assets and Infrastructure.

 

7          MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has an area of 309m2 and as such is well below the threshold (4,000m2) requiring a master plan.

 

8          RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3A (General Business Zone) 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:-

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 – FSR

1.5:1

1.35:1

Yes- see Environmental Assessment section of report

33 - Building Height

12m

Mainly 12m with a small encroachment of a light well which reaches 13m

No - see Environmental Assessment section of report

 

8.2       Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

         

Parking

Landuse.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Business

2 spaces

Nil

No - see Environmental Assessment section of report

Multi-unit housing

3 spaces

3 spaces (stacked)

Yes - see Environmental Assessment section of report

 

9    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1   Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal provides 420m2 of as gross floor area which equates to a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.35:1 and is below the maximum permissible (1.5:1) under Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  It should be noted that this amount of floor space provided is only achieved by the inclusion of the right of carriage way from Alfreda Street as part of the site area, although this area is restricted from building works.

 

9.2   Building Height

 

The proposed building has an overall height of 12m with a small portion exceeding 12m being a light well reaching a height of approximately 13m.  The encroachment is along the eastern elevation and exceeds the maximum statutory standard (12m) set by Clause 33 (5) of the LEP.  The purpose of the development standard is stated as:

 

“To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of the land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard fro the amenity of the surrounding area”.

 

The applicant has lodged a submission pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) with regards to the non compliance with the building height development standard and raises the following grounds of objection:-

 

·          To increase the environmental benefit, the design includes a highlight window.

·          The highlight window is located to enable cross ventilation benefits to the development.

·          The variation proposed to the maximum building height is approximately 300mm, with the majority of the development well below the height line.

·          The area of non compliance only extends across part of the development and not the full width of the site.

·          The impact on neighbouring properties is minimal, with no affectation to views, light or ventilation as a result of the non compliance.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it is considered unnecessary and unreasonable to achieve compliance with the development standard in the circumstances outlined above.  The increased height of 500mm above the maximum wall height, shown on the eastern elevation, is considered minor and is a localised point contained to the area of the clerestory window allowing northern light into the bedroom and hallway of the top floor unit to the rear of the site (Unit 3).  The non compliance is a result of the topography of the land as it has a cross-fall from west to east.  On the western elevation, this same section of the building is well under the statutory height limit (12m) being 10.8m approximately.

 

It is considered that no substantial additional impact occurs to adjoining properties as a result of the variation proposed to the overall building height.  Additionally the variation occurs well to the rear of the building and it is considered that it will not have a significant impact to the streetscape.  The proposed clerestory window provides a benefit to the rear unit by providing northern light to the bedroom and hallway of this unit.  Accordingly, it is considered that the overall building height is consistent with the purpose of the building height standard and the SEPP 1 objection is supported for approval.

 

9.3   Right of way

 

The amended proposal removes the proposed building encroachment over the right of carriage way identified by survey to be to the east of the existing carport and running to Alfreda Street.

 

Douglas Flats (206-210 Coogee Bay Road) immediately adjacent to the west of the site has objected to the proposal on the grounds that it encroaches on the right of way that they enjoy over the subject site and without their consent and authority the application is illegal.  Council is in receipt of legal advice that advises that there is nothing on title to indicate that 206-210 Coogee Bay Road is benefited by a right of way over the subject site and “the applicant is not precluded from dealing with the property by reason only of any claim to a right of way alleged by the owners of 206-210 Coogee Bay Road”.  Accordingly the objection cannot be sustained.

 

9.4   Loss of views, outlook, light, air and ventilation.

 

The proposal consists of two building elements above the ground floor level linked at the first floor level by courtyards on the western side and a hallway/stairway on the eastern side.  The stairway linking the ground floor and the first floor on the eastern side of the site appears to be covered, as also is the hallway adjacent to stairwell and first floor courtyards.  Between the first floor and the second floor, the stairway and second floor landing appear to be uncovered. 

 

Unit 2, located within the adjacent building to the west (206-210 Coogee Bay Road) is a residential dwelling having a kitchen window and two bedroom windows which overlook the subject site.  The eastern side verandah of Unit 2 enjoys an outlook north-east towards the north headland of Coogee Bay and Dunningham Reserve (see Figure 4-8 below).  This verandah abuts the western boundary of the subject site and its relationship with the subject site appears to be incorrectly shown on the architectural plans when compared to the submitted survey.  An objection is raised in regard to the proximity of the building to the windows and verandah such that light, air, ventilation and views will be obstructed.

 

A part of the verandah at its northern end will be adjacent to the four (4) storey wall of the northern section of the proposed building, while the southern end of the verandah will be adjacent to the proposed first floor courtyards that separates the proposed two building elements at this level.  The height of the wall on the western boundary adjacent to the proposed first floor courtyards is not clearly shown on the submitted plans, however it appears to be approximately 1.52m above the courtyard level and this would then be 1.2m above the level of the verandah of Unit 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road.  It is understood that this would require the protection of openings within this light well to prevent the spread of fire both to 206-210 Coogee Bay Road and the open stairway.  Details of compliance with the Building Code of Australian will be required with a construction certificate.

 

The relationship between the verandah and the proposed development is not entirely satisfactory.  Air and ventilation will not be unduly restricted, however it is considered that the outlook to the north east currently enjoyed from the verandah of Unit 2 will be lost, although the northern outlook from the verandah will be maintained (see Figure 8).  There will be a some degree of overshadowing to the eastern windows and verandah of Unit 2, however some solar access and light will be maintained. 

 

As the proposal is within the 3A General Business Zone, no setback provisions apply and a building may be built to the boundary.  The amended proposal is seen as a compromise to this situation and it is considered that refusal of the application could not be sustained on the basis of the amenity impacts of the proposal.  Instead it is considered that the proposed boundary wall adjacent to the courtyards should be increased such that it is 1.5m in height above the level of the verandah of Unit 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road to give a reasonable degree of privacy between the subject development and Unit 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road.

 

 

 

Figure 4 - verandah of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road adjacent to existing wall of subject site

Figure 5 - verandah of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road taken from subject site (east)

 

 

 

Figure 6 - Looking south-east from verandah of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road

Figure 7 - Looking north-east from verandah of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road

 

Figure 8 - view retained to the north from the verandah of 2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road

 

 

 

 

9.5   Traffic and Parking

 

It is considered that the proposed scale of the development does not generate a significant increase in traffic to the surrounding area.  The proposal, however, provides three (3) car parking spaces, by way of a car stacker (car lift) and this only meets the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking in regard to the residential component of the proposed development.  Consequently there is a shortfall of 2 car spaces associated with the retail use of the ground floor shop.  It is considered appropriate that the shortfall of these business car spaces be the subject of a Section 94 contribution applicable for commercial development in Coogee as set out in Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plan.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the recommendation of this report.

 

From the specifications provided for the car stacker, it appears that it will be capable of accommodating three standard size cars, although the overall length of the platform (5m) is 500mm shorter in length than that specified in the DCP – Parking for a car stand.  It should be noted that Council’s Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services do not support the use of car stackers due to potential mechanical failure.  It is considered that this is an insufficient reason to sustain a refusal of the application and an appropriate condition regarding regular servicing and maintenance is contained within the recommendation of this report.  Council has already approved a series of developments that incorporate car lifts and car stackers and this has become a common alternative method of providing spaces on narrow and constrained sites.

 

Issues regarding mechanical noise arising from the operation of the car stacker has been addressed by appropriate conditions of consent contained within the recommendation of this report requiring acoustic reports that demonstrate that noise and vibration from the proposed development will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual and Industrial Noise Policy.


 

9.6   Streetscape

 

 

Figure 9- Coogee Bay Road streetscape

in the vicinity of subject site

 

The proposed height of the parapet roof has not been shown on the submitted plans, however it has been calculated to be RL 22.78, while the top of the parapet roof of the adjoining development to the west (206-210 Coogee Bay Road) has been shown by survey to be RL 22.00.  It is considered that the proposal will provide a satisfactory streetscape appearance subject to the top of the parapet maintaining the same RL as 206-210 Coogee Bay Road.  Window openings above the ground floor on the streetscape elevation (south) appear to be in proportion with the proposed building.

 

Although the proposed development will present a blank wall on its eastern elevation visible to a certain extent from further to the east along Coogee Bay Road, this will not be visible should the adjoining property to the east 214-216 Coogee Bay Road seek to redevelop to a similar height as predominantly evident along Coogee Bay Road to the east.  Accordingly the proposed streetscape appearance of the building is considered satisfactory subject to maintaining a consistent parapet height.

 

10  CONCLUSION

 

The application proposes the redevelopment of the site in compliance with the FSR provisions of the LEP.  Although there is a minor breach to the overall statutory building height, this in itself does not provide a substantial impact to adjoining properties or the streetscape.  The amenity impacts to the residential unit in the adjoining development to the west (2/206-210 Coogee Bay Road), although not entirely satisfactory, the applicant has attempted through the amended design to provide a greater degree of light and ventilation to this verandah.  Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      That the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to building heights) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of locality as follows, and that the Department of infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources be advised accordingly:

 

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 28/03/GG for Demolition of existing and construction of a mixed use residential and commercial building with associated parking at 212 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans with Job No. DA-2121-A and numbered Sheet 1of 3, dated the 5th June, 2003 and received by Council on the 10 th June, 2003 and with Job No. DA-2121-B and numbered Sheet 2 of 5 to 5 to 5, all dated the 30th September, 2003 and received by Council on the 30th September, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.        A separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council with regard to each separate proposed usage of the building prior to occupancy.

 

3.        There shall be no encroachment of any part of the building over the right of carriageway to ensure that there will be no restriction of access to property owners benefiting from the right of carriageway.

 

4.        The western boundary wall adjacent to the first floor courtyards shall have a height of 1.5m above the level of the verandah of Unit 2 of 206-210 Coogee Bay Road adjacent to the west to minimise overlooking.

 

5.        The top of the parapet shall be the same height as the adjoining building to the west (206-210 Coogee Bay Road) to ensure a satisfactory streetscape appearance.

 

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

 

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

 

7.        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.

 

Details of the proposed colour of the roof are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with the section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the roofing being installed.

 

8.        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.

 

9.        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.

 

10.      External walls sited less that 500mm from the boundaries of the site are to be erected as ‘face brickwork’ or other maintenance free materials, to ensure that adequate provisions are made for maintenance purposes within the property boundaries.

 

11.      All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

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

 

13.      Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

14.      A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

15.      All existing outbuildings on the site must be demolished and removed in conjunction with the development.

 

16.      The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, prior to the commencement of works.

 

17.      Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

18.      Details of any proposed mechanical ventilation and air conditioning be submitted with the construction certificate and should not exceed the maximum height of the building and shall be appropriately concealed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

22.      The residential component of the development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

23.      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.

 

24.      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.

 

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

 

26.      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:

 

27.      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.

 

28.      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.

 

29.      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.

 

30.      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.

 

31.      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.

 

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.      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.

 

34.      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:

 

35.      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.

 

36.      Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which states that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

37.      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.

 

38.      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.

 

39.      A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures located upon:

 

·        All of the premises adjoining the subject site

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

 

40.      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.

 

41.      A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

42.      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.

 

43.      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.

 

44.      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.

 

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

 

a)         Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

b)         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.

 

c)         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.

 

46.      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.

 

47.      The use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum), Monday to Friday inclusive and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

48.      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.

 

49.      Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

50.      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.

 

51.      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.

 

52.      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.

 

53.      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.

 

54.      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.

 

55.      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.

 

56.      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”.

 

57.      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.

 

58.      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.

 

59.      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.

 

60.      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.

 

61.      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.

 

62.      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.

 

63.      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.

 

64.      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.

 

65.      Temporary hoardings or fences and public access are required to be designed in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

·          The hoarding/fence is required to be structurally adequate, and be constructed of plywood sheeting, painted white or cyclone wire fencing material with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control.  The hoarding/fence is to be maintained in good condition at all times.

 

·          The hoarding/fencing is required to be constructed at a minimum height of 1.8 metres.

 

·          A path of travel having a minimum width of 1.5m is to be maintained across the front of the site and safe pedestrian access is to be provided at all times

 

·          Hoardings and fences are not to obstruct access for services including fire services.

 

·          A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

·          Unobstructed access must be maintained at all times for pedestrians and people with disabilities.  If necessary, a stable and level, non-slip timber/metal walking platform or firm road base material is to be provided adjacent to the hoarding/fence across the front of the site.

           

·          The hoarding/fence is to be provided with reflective barricades, lights or other devices, to provide adequate warning to pedestrians and motorists.

 

·          The hoarding/fence is to be constructed so that it will not obstruct the view of motorists, pedestrians or traffic lights.

 

·          Site access gates to the site shall not open over the footway/road.

 

·          The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to the construction of any hoarding/fence upon the road reserve/footway.

 

·          Geotextile fabric or other suitable material is to be provided to the perimeter of any scaffolding during construction, to prevent any articles from falling to a public place or adjoining premises.

 

66.      ‘B’ Class’ overhead type hoardings and public access are required to be designed in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable).

 

·          The hoarding is to be designed so that the wind loads comply with AS1170.2.  Superimposed loads from site sheds and materials not to exceed 40% of the design live loads.  The structure should have a factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning and 2 against sliding.

 

·          Footings to the hoarding are to be located and designed so as not to have an adverse affect upon underground services or the like.  The hoarding is to be able to withstand a vehicle impact and removal of any one column anywhere in the structure and a minimum length of 2m of wall supporting the deck on any one side supporting the structure is required.

 

·          Metal parts of the hoarding or associated structures to be not less than 4m from any power line, transmission line or transmission apparatus or 1.5m from part for non conductive materials, such as timber.

 

·          Adequate artificial lighting is to be provided to the hoarding.

 

·          A suitable system of buffer railing or barriers, particularly at locations such as an intersection or sharp bend.

 

·          A minimum overhead clearance of 2.2m is to be provided below the hoarding.

 

·          The street side of the hoarding is to be open for at least 2/3 of its full height for the length of the structure to prevent a tunnel effect.

 

·          Waterproofing of the deck above the footway is required to be provided and adequate provisions are to be made for the disposal of stormwater.

 

·          The hoarding is to be painted white or other light colour acceptable to Council.

 

·          Site sheds or accommodation located on top of a hoarding within a designated crane area or where materials are being lifted over are required to sustain a 10Kpa load and a protective fence and handrails are to be provided.

 

·          The hoarding is to be erected and maintained fully in accordance with the requirements of Work Cover New South Wales.

 

·          Unobstructed access must be maintained at all times for pedestrians and people with disabilities.  If necessary, a stable and level, non-slip timber/metal walking platform or firm road base material is to be provided adjacent to the hoarding/fence across the front of the site.

 

·          A certificate of structural adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the certifying authority upon installation (and a copy of the certificate is to be forwarded to the Council if it is not the certifying authority) certifying the structural adequacy of the hoarding and compliance with Councils conditions of consent and relevant requirements of WorkCover New South Wales.

 

67.      A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

68.      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

 

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

 

69.      Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1. Details of the proposed access, facilities and carparking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

70.      Access for persons with disabilities, being provided to the shop in accordance with Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia.  Details of compliance are required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certificate for the development.

 

71.      Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the shop, in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia.  Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certification for the development.

 

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

 

72.      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.

 

73.      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.

 

74.      The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

75.      All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·          Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

·          Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

·          Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

·          Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

                        ·          Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise and vibration emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

76.      A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and confirms that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual Chapter 174 & Industrial Noise Policy and relevant conditions of approval. The report is to consider the impact of the vehicle turntable, car stacker, mechanical ventilation systems and gymnasium on neighbours and occupiers of the building

 

77.      A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual Chapter 174 & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services. The report is to consider the impact of the vehicle turntable, car stacker, mechanical ventilation systems and gymnasium on neighbours and occupiers of the building

 

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

 

79.      The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with Environmental Protection Authority guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations and temporal content, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Environmental Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

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

 

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

 

81.      There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

82.      The location and height of the discharge of mechanical ventilation systems are required to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668 and details are to be provided in the relevant plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

83.      Details of the car lift operation and safety requirements shall be included in any contract of sale.

 

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

 

(a)        Reconstruct the Council footpath, kerb and gutter in Coogee Bay Rd in accordance with Council’s urban design guidelines for Coogee.

 

85.      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.

 

86.      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.

 

87.      The inspection and maintenance schedule of the car lift and turntable is to be supplied with the Construction Certificate application. This schedule is to be incorporated in the strata management plan for the site and issued to any occupants of the units.

 

Training of all residents using the car lift and turntable shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified instructor and this requirement shall be included in a property management plan or alternatively a strata management plan should the units be later strata subdivided.

 

A copy of the proposed management plan/strata management plan, incorporating the above issues in this condition, is to be approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

88.      A statement setting out the specification and safety requirements for the proposed car lift and turntable must accompany any contract of sale for units within the above property and to any occupants.

 

89.      The proposed car lift shall, as a minimum, contain those design features documented by Car Parking Solutions in the document titled, “Data Sheet Wohr Parklift 413 received by Council on the 10th Jun 2003.

 

The Certifying Authority shall obtain for approval a detailed specification for the car lift prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

The manufacturer shall submit to the Certifying Authority, certification that the car lift has been installed to the approved specification prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

90.      The proposed car turntable shall, as a minimum, contain those design features documented by Car Parking Solutions in the document titled, “Data Sheet Wohr Turntable 505 received by Council on the 10th Jun 2003.

 

The Certifying Authority shall obtain for approval a detailed specification for the car lift prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

The manufacturer shall submit to the Certifying Authority, certification that the car lift has been installed to the approved specification prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

91.      The applicant is to liaise with Council’s Traffic Engineer in regards to the requirement of a work zone in Coogee Bay Rd for the duration of the construction works. Any ‘work zone’ required must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of building works.

 

92.      The applicant shall install a vehicle-sighting mirror at the “L” shaped intersection of the right of carriageway on its eastern boundary opposite the sewer manhole, to Australian Standards. Details are to be shown on the plans submitted for the construction certificate and compliance with this condition is required prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

95.      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $138.00 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

96.      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.

 

97.      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.

 

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

 

99.      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 occupation of the development/release of the plan of subdivision.

 

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

 

100.    All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.

 

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

 

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

 

103.    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.

 

104.    As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, 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).

 

105.    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:

106.    The residential garbage room area will have to be designed? so as to be able to contain a total of 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 2 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

107.    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.

 

108.    Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the development.

 

109.    A separate garbage area is required for the retail premises. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

110.    The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Coogee Bay Rd frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Coogee. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

All street furniture is required to be purchased through Council. Due to supply constraints, the applicant is required to place an order and pay for the required furniture three months prior to the estimated date for the completion of street frontage works.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of ($2,000 per street frontage) shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Coogee Bay Hotel site frontage.

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

 

111.    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               $ 4,183.38

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $ 1,849.72

c)       for townscape improvements                                                       $ 2,156.44

d)       for car parking                                                                            $15,804.00

e)       Administration fee $425.00                                                         $  425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to

 

a)       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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1.      The need for pollution control devices to the Wohr Turntable 505 and Parklift 413, to ensure there will be no water borne pollutants discharging or likely to discharge into the sewerage drainage systems, is to be investigated with Sydney Water.

 

A2.      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A3.      The applicant 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 C3                                    -           Protection of openings

            c)         Part D1                                    -           Provisions for escape

            d)         Part D2                                    -           Construction of exits

            e)         Part D3                                    -           Access for people with disabilities

            f)          Part E1                                     -           Fire fighting equipment

            g)         Part E4                                     -           Emergency lighting, exit signs &

                                                                                    warning systems

            h)         Part F1                                     -           Damp and weatherproofing

            i)          Part F2                                     -           Sanitary and other facilities

            j)          Part F4                                     -           Light and ventilation

           

            Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 78/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Requirements for Dual Occupancies and Subdivisions provisions

 

 

DATE:

1 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0897

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council's current Dual Occupancy provisions have been in place for 5 years, under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998. Council has consistently applied these provisions, particularly in relation to minimum allotment and subdivision sizes for dual occupancy developments. Over recent years, an increasing number of applications have been received by Council requesting variations to these controls.

 

At its Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting of 11 February 2003, Council resolved:

 

that a report be prepared for Council that numerically shows the previous requirements for dual occupancies and subdivisions and a table for comparison, including comparisons with other local Councils such as Waverley, Woollahra and South Sydney. This report to also show any existing merit based approval systems for dual occupancies and subdivisions under the new sections of the Act, rather than basing approvals on the size of the blocks.

 

This report provides a background and overview of dual occupancy development in Randwick City, compares and discusses other Council provisions and identifies potential for change and further investigation to improve Council’s dual occupancy provisions. It is recommended that these further investigations and review of the dual occupancy provisions be undertaken across the City, with consideration of different requirements for different localities, laneways, corner allotments and for granny flats. It is thus recommended that Council amend its Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan (DCP) and also its laneway policy, the “Subdivision Code”, as part of this review.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Randwick City Council Local Government Area (LGA) was one of the first areas in Sydney to permit dual occupancy development, through gazettal of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance (PSO) in 1978. The PSO stated that a dwelling house shall not be erected on an allotment of land unless a minimum allotment area of 325 square metres (sqm) with not less than 9 metres wide frontage within zone 2(a1), 2(b1), 2(b2) and 2(c1) is achieved and minimum allotment area of 460sqm and with not less than 15 metre wide frontage within zone 2(a2) and 2(d) is achieved.

 

These provisions were in place until 1987 when Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) 12 was gazetted. This REP applied across Sydney and provided blanket controls that permitted dual occupancy development (both attached and detached) where dwelling houses were permissible. SREP set out minimum site areas and other standards required for dual occupancy proposals. For attached dual occupancies the minimum allotment area was 400sqm; for detached dual occupancy the minimum was 600sqm. SREP also provided specific requirements for the Municipality of Randwick, permitting dual occupancy development with a floor space ratio of up to 0.6:1 (some councils were higher while for most councils the FSR was 0.5:1). The SREP’s minimum site area requirement for attached dwellings (400 sqm) was not applied to Randwick, to allow dual occupancy on smaller sites (recognising that existing controls for attached dual occupancies were generally more generous than the SREP). Strata subdivision of both attached/detached dual occupancy was permitted in Randwick Municipality.

 

In 1995, the State Government took a new approach to urban housing and repealed these State applied blanket provisions for dual occupancy. Councils were instead required to submit residential strategies noting how their existing and proposed plans and policies provide for further housing opportunities and choice. In Randwick, the previous dual occupancy controls were thus reinstated until 1998.

 

The current provisions under Randwick LEP 1998 (Clause 30) set more restrictive controls for dual occupancy. The LEP permits attached dual occupancies on allotments within the Residential 2A zone, with a minimum of 450sqm and a frontage of at least 12 metres (except for battleaxe allotments). However, it does not permit subdivision (including strata) of attached dual occupancies. A floor space ratio of up to 0.5:1 is permitted (the same FSR as for a single dwelling house in this zone).  The minimum size for an allotment that may be subdivided to create separate allotments for two dwellings comprising a dual occupancy is 900sqm (attached or detached). For detached dual occupancies this, in effect, a two lot subdivision with single dwelling house on each allotment. The stated purpose of establishing these minimum requirements for the subdivision of land within residential zones is to “protect and enhance the local amenity”.

 

Where Dual Occupancy development is proposed in the Residential 2B and 2C zones, it is assessed against controls and standards contained in Council’s Multi-unit Housing DCP.

 

Analysis of Randwick City Council

 

A preliminary analysis of dual occupancy development in Randwick City Council has been undertaken, addressing the last five years. Records show that Council has approved 114 development applications for dual occupancies.

 

Of these applications, 36% have been located in the north of the LGA (Clovelly, Kensington, Randwick, Kingsford, Coogee, South Coogee), and 64% have been located in the south (Maroubra, Matraville, Malabar, Chifley, Little Bay). Patterns of subdivision across Randwick City show, on average, smaller allotments in the northern suburbs when compared to the south, reflecting different periods and styles of subdivision. Of the 114 consents, 15% have been located on corner allotments (also often the larger lots in a subdivision).

 

Most applications were for new dual occupancies, which have resulted in a net dwelling increase in the LGA of about 114 dwellings over 5 years (41 in the north and 73 in the southern suburbs). During this period, the net dwelling increase in Randwick City was 2,934 dwellings (Metropolitan Development Program, Dept of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources). Dual Occupancies thus contributed to only 3.9% of this net dwelling increase over the past years.

 

Council’s current minimum subdivision requirement of 900sqm appears to be a key constraint to dual occupancy development potential. This preliminary analysis suggests that these larger allotments are limited to corner allotments and to scattered allotments arising from topographical variations in the different subdivisions. Detached dual occupancy is thus limited. Similarly, the inability to subdivide an attached dual occupancy approved on a parcel of land 450-899sqm, as two individual dwellings, appears to have limited the incentive to construct attached dual occupancies which, while they can be used by the extended family or rented, they cannot be subdivided and sold.

 

Dual occupancy development provides the advantages of better utilising large block of land in established suburbs with established facilities and services, without substantial changes to density and character of an area, can be appropriate and enhance neighbourhood amenity subject to good design, can provide greater choice in housing and potentially more affordable housing.

 

Any revision of Randwick City’s dual occupancy provisions to further provide for this housing choice could, however, potentially see a significant increase in the number of dual occupancy applications, change to existing subdivision patterns and amenity impacts on neighbourhoods. Any reduction in the key control, the 900 sqm subdivision minimum, is likely to have a greater impact on the southern than the northern suburbs. Given the variations in lot sizes throughout the LGA, it would be inappropriate to recommend any specific minimum area for dual occupancy development at this stage, without more detailed investigation. Nevertheless, as discussed below in the analysis of other councils, the 900 sq m minimum for detached dual occupancies would generally appear large, compared to other councils and to existing patterns of subdivision in the LGA. In principle, a reduction to around 700-800 sq m may be appropriate but will require thorough testing and consideration of locality variations. Similarly, there may be scope for a different subdivision minimum for attached dual occupancies, given that a single built form may often more easily address the existing built form of a neighbourhood than a detached dual occupancy.

 

The new Council GIS system, still being implementing, has only recently enabled such an accurate analysis to be undertaken. This system now enables the investigation of predominant and average allotment sizes across the 2A zoned land within different suburbs. The information is critical to making an informed decision on future dual occupancy provisions and any variations between the suburbs.

It is recommended that a comprehensive Council-wide analysis of all Residential 2A zoned allotments is undertaken to examine the potential impact of any change to Council’s dual occupancy minimum allotment and subdivision requirements, including consideration of a potential reduction of the 900 sqm subdivision minimum to around 700-800 sqm, having regard to the character and urban fabric of Randwick’s suburbs.

 

Analysis of other Inner Sydney Councils

 

The dual occupancy controls of adjoining and nearby Councils vary quite substantially (see Attachment 1 for summary).

 

Waverley Council allows both attached and detached dual occupancy developments, with attached dual occupancies requiring a slightly lower minimum site area than Randwick City, of 400sqm, and detached dual occupancies requiring a substantially lower minimum site area of 600sqm.  Subdivision in Waverley varies according to the residential zone, with a minimum requirement of 325sqm for each new allotment in zones 2(a), 2(c) and 2(c2) and a minimum of 232sqm for each new allotment in zone 2(b).

 

Botany Bay City Council does not permit dual occupancy development as a land use.

 

South Sydney City Council requires a minimum site area of 230sqm for single dwelling development. Depending on the context of the development their residential code allows for lots of not less than 135sqm in certain areas.  

 

Woollahra City Council’s residential planning DCP do not refer to attached dual occupancy development. No dwelling house or subdivision is permitted unless the land has a minimum allotment size as indicated on the relevant density maps. These allotment sizes vary from 230sqm to 1100sqm taking into account the individual characteristics and subdivision patterns of different areas and suburbs. Woollahra recently commenced examining the potential for dual occupancy development. Council Officers advised that this look at ‘granny flat’ style development, and may not involve attached dual occupancy like the current Randwick provisions.  

 

Willoughby Council is similarly located to Randwick City in relation to the Sydney CBD. It allows attached dual occupancies (with external development), attached dual occupancies (with an internal conversion of an existing dwelling), as well as detached dual occupancies.  Willoughby’s controls are more restrictive than Randwick’s, for attached dual occupancies (with external development) requiring a minimum site area of 700 square metres.  Attached dual occupancies (with an internal conversion of an existing dwelling) require a minimum of 600 square metres site area and detached dual occupancies require a minimum 900 square metres. Subdivision is permitted which creates separate titles for each dwelling comprising a dual occupancy, but only if a period of 5 years has elapsed since the last date on which an occupation certificate was issued in respect of those dwellings.

 

Randwick City Council’s dual occupancy and subdivision requirements appear to fall within the middle range when compared to the minimum and maximum requirements of other inner Sydney Councils of Marrickville, Leichhardt, Rockdale and Hurstville.

 

All Councils investigated provide specific minimum lot sizes, whether or not supplemented by associated performance requirements. This analysis highlights that some variation in the minimum controls (primarily for lot sizes and subdivision) exists among councils, that Randwick City Council provisions are generally similar to other councils. The subdivision minimums for attached dual occupancies are generally lower in other councils (e.g. 700 sqm). For detached dual occupancies, while significant variation of minimum requirements occurs (i.e. much lower requirements but also much higher than Randwick, varying from 230 sqm to 1,100 sqm), this is generally limited to those councils that have prepared detailed area-based analyses of dual occupancy potential and suitability. Even with these more detailed analyses, however, numerical minimums for allotments and subdivision have generally been retained.

 

Thus, this analysis supports scope to review the current Randwick Council provisions, and considering potential variations for attached and detached dual occupancies, while considering more area-based approaches and ensuring that scale, bulk, ESD principles and design issues are adequately addressed

 

ISSUES:

 

Corner Allotments

 

The characteristics of corner allotments, dual frontages, dual access and generally larger allotments, may make them more conducive to dual occupancy development that has minimal impact upon existing streetscape and amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

The ability of proposed dual occupancy development facades to address both street frontages and provide access from different streets lends more easily to development that compliments the streetscape and doesn’t leave corner allotments isolated from the rest of the street via side setbacks.

 

Of Council’s 114 dual occupancy consents, 15% were corner allotments. Given the relative benefits of locating dual occupancies on corner allotments in terms of urban design and public amenity, corner properties should be examined with a view to considering separate dual occupancy and subdivision planning controls, as part of an overall review of dual occupancy and subdivision requirements. From this preliminary review it appears that lower minimum lot sizes may be acceptable on corners sites, if elements such as dual frontages and access is achievable.      

 

It is recommended that corner allotments be investigated for separate provisions in the review.

 

Laneways

 

Council’s ‘Subdivision Code’ (Policy No 6.01.22) was introduced in the late 70s and provides for subdivision of specified allotments with frontages to laneways (roads of 6.09 metres in width), with dedication of part of the allotment to allow road widening. This is part of Council’s road widening strategy so that improvements can be made to roadways, footpaths, kerb & gutters and drainage in these designated areas. The Code includes the following streets in Maroubra: Ferguson St, Glanfield St, Green St, Galvin St, Mason St, Alma Rd, Metcalfe St, Nevorie Cres, Majorie Cres, Eastmore Place and also includes Randwick laneways at Bundock Lane, between Avoca St & Canberra St. The current dual occupancy controls prevent dual occupancies/subdivision of these specified areas, and subsequently the road widening Code has not substantially progressed.  

 

A survey conducted as part of the recent D.A. assessment of 259 Rainbow Street, South Coogee (reported to the Health, Building & Planning Meeting of 9 Sept 2003) examined Bundock Lane. It looked at 21 properties in the block along Rainbow Street between Malabar Road and Hendy Avenue. Of these, eight properties were below the 450 sqm requirement, five properties were between 450 and 600 sqm, seven properties were between 601 and 750 sqm, and one property was above 750 sqm. Many of the allotments were less than the 450 sqm required for an attached dual occupancy proposal and all properties were below the minimum 900sqm required for subdivision/detached dual occupancies. The report noted there have been no subdivisions within this block for dual occupancy developments since the gazettal of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998, apart from one boundary adjustment and two that were in accordance with Council’s Subdivision Code. 

 

The report noted similar small allotment sizes along Rainbow Street and Bundock Lane from Avoca to Mount Street and from Mount Street to Wolseley Road. Information from the applicant noted the average lot size of 330 sqm in this location.

 

A preliminary examination was undertaken of 2 other laneways under the Code, located in Maroubra, being Ferguson and Mason streets. Within these streets, the ability of existing allotments to comply with the 450sqm minimum allotment size for attached dual occupancies was also relatively small, being 41.6% and 18.4% respectively.

 

Given that these properties on laneways could provide dual frontage options, and given the benefit of widening these narrow lanes, there is scope to review Council’s current dual occupancy requirements to make redevelopment a more attractive option and promote dual occupancy development in these areas. These properties should be examined with a view to considering provisions specific to these properties, separate to any overall outcomes of the dual occupancy review, recognising that their small sizes may require different considerations to ensure amenity and privacy impacts are adequately addressed. However, any review needs to take into account the potential for this road widening to be achieved in all identified locations. The issue of provision of services and serviceability of the laneways needs to be analysed in detail.

 

It is recommended that the dual occupancy review address laneways and review the ‘Subdivision Code’, in conjunction with the Assets & Infrastructure Department, to ensure that the identified laneways are still appropriate for future road widening and if so, to recommend appropriate provisions for dual occupancies and subdivision along these lanes.     

 

Granny flat development

 

Randwick City has no DCP provisions specifically for ‘granny flat’ style development or for detached dual occupancies where subdivision is not involved. Council’s DCP envisages attached dual occupancy development on allotments over 450sqm, which can only be subdivided if the allotment has 900sqm. Detached dual occupancy is prohibited unless the subject land has 900sqm, in which case it will no longer be classified as dual occupancy development (and is, in effect, two separate dwelling houses on their own allotments).  

 

Other Councils are examining granny flats as an alternative dwelling type. Rockdale City Council’s Dual Occupancy and Granny Flat Development Draft DCP 39 proposes granny flat style within certain limitations. There is no restriction regarding allotment size, however the proportion of the site devoted to the granny flat is limited to 65sqm. The draft DCP stipulates that the rear most dwelling (predominantly the granny flat) shall address the laneway or narrow street to the rear. This secondary dwelling shall be limited to one storey and a 0.9 metre right of way (walkway) shall be maintained along the addition to the lane frontage. A maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies.

 

This option would provide for smaller, secondary dwellings on existing allotments (as subdivision is not permitted) and potentially being smaller allotments; that is, providing for detached dual occupancies but without subdivision. This could assist in housing affordability, allowing extended family or existing local residents to remain in the area. It also considers the concerns of bulk and scale of dual occupancy development and may also provide an appropriate outcome for Council’s existing laneways.

 

It is recommended that granny flats be considered in Council’s dual occupancy review.

 

Planning / Urban Design / ESD / Heritage Issues

 

Any changes to allotment and subdivision requirements may also impact on the suitability of other planning provisions such as FSR, setbacks and landscaping. These should also be addressed in the review process.

 

Provisions to encourage the latest best practice E.S.D guidelines and incorporate principles for high quality design should be incorporated into any revised DCP. More detailed analysis of the existing dual occupancy consents and their characteristics, merits and opportunities for improved design outcomes should be undertaken as part of this review. An examination of heritage items and conservation areas and whether they should be included or excluded from any changes to dual occupancy or urban design requirements should also be conducted.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Properties zoned Residential 2A contribute the bulk of Council’s residential land. Any changes to Council requirements with regard to dual occupancies and subdivisions could have considerable impact upon urban form, densities and amenity of different neighbourhoods. It is recommended that a comprehensive analysis of all properties zoned Residential 2A be undertaken to consider the impact of any changes to the dual occupancy requirements, ensuring that the objectives of the zone are not compromised, and considering area specific differences. This should provide a sound basis for a dual occupancy review which should, at a minimum, consider laneways, corner lots, granny flats, current planning controls, ESD, design and heritage issues.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.         Endorse the proposed further investigations and comprehensive review of dual occupancy provisions in Randwick City;

2.         Resolve, under Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to prepare a draft Development Control Plan to review the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan; and

3.         Resolve to review Council’s Subdivision Code (Policy 6.01.22) as part of this dual occupancy review.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Dual Occupancy and Subdivision controls of other inner Sydney Councils (table).

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEPHEN ROSELAND

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIORNMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


Council

Dual Occupancy

Dwelling Type

Zone

Min. Lot size (sqm)

Max. FSR

Min. street frontage

Max. Site Coverage

Subdivision

Laneways

Randwick

Attached

Residential 2A

450

0.5:1

12m

N/A

Min. 900sqm

Dedication required along laneway

Waverley

Attached

 

400

0.5:1

(or up  to previous building on site)

 

N/A

Varies 650, 1000 and 464sqm

N/A

 

Detached.

 

600

Same as above

 

N/A

Same as above

N/A

Woollahra

New lot sizes created from Density Map

Residential 2(A)-2(B)

230-1100

0.625:1 to 1:1

N/A

N/A

230-1100

N/A

South Sydney

Single dwelling

N/A

230

N/A

N/A

N/A

Min 230

N/A

Botany

Dual Occupancy not permitted

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Marrickville

Attached

Residential 2(A-C)

400

0.6:1 (or FSR of any existing dwg)

N/A

N/A

Consideration based on merit

N/A

 

Detached

Residential 2(A-C)

600

0.6:1 (or FSR of any existing dwg)

N/A

N/A

Consideration based on merit

N/A

Leichhardt

N/A

N/A

200

N/A

N/A

N/A

Subdivision to be consistent with existing subdivn pattern.

Policy allows dwellings on lanes only where existing dwellings front lane.

Rockdale (draft-not approved)

Granny flats

N/A

No min. lot size

0.5:1

N/A

65sqm (dwg)

Not permissible

Rear dwelling shall face the lane, 1 storey only, with  0.9m right of way along lane.

 

Attached

N/A

N/A

0.5:1

N/A

N/A

Min. 700 sqm

As above and provide additional car space.

 

Detached

N/A

N/A

0.5:1

N/A

N/A

Min. 700 sqm

As above

Hurstville

Attached; detached (cnr; or rear lane)

Residential

630

0.5:1 to 0.6:1 

15m

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Granny Flats

Residential

 

 

 

N/A

 

N/A

Willoughby

Attached (external development)

Residential 2(A), 2(a2)

700

0.4:1

15m

N/A

Only after 5 yrs

(700)

N/A

 

Attached (internal conversion)

As above

600

0.4:1

15m

N/A

Only after 5 yrs

(600)

N/A

 

Detached.

As above

900

0.4:1

15m

N/A

Only after 5 yrs

(900)

N/A


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 80/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Maroubra Junction Town Centre - Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 33) and Draft Development Control Plan 2003

 

 

DATE:

8 August, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2550

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT               

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The planning controls for Maroubra Junction town centre are being reviewed via the preparation of a draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Amendment No. 33 and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) 2003.

 

The draft plans were exhibited from 13 November 2002 to 11 December 2002 and a public workshop was held during this time to supplement the public consultation process. A total of 13 submissions were received and have been reviewed, assessed and revisions made to the draft plans to address these issues where appropriate.

 

The draft plans are now considered to provide a best practice approach to planning and design of mixed-use developments in Maroubra Junction town centre. The draft DCP specifically incorporates the design requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – ‘Design Quality of Residential Flat Development’ (SEPP 65), as well as the provisions of the Residential Flat Design Code, prepared by Planning NSW in accordance with the Premier and State government initiatives for encouraging high quality design in all new development.

 

The draft LEP has been amended only in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Parliamentary Counsel for minor wording changes, with no change to the meaning or intent of the draft LEP. The Parliamentary Counsel has given its opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made. The draft DCP has been amended in response to submissions and government authority comments, by refining and improving the content of the draft DCP without, again, sufficient changes to its intent that would warrant its re-exhibition.

 

This report reviews the issues raised in submissions and explains revisions/enhancements made to the draft plans in response.

 

This report recommends that the Council endorse the draft LEP (at Attachment 6) and the draft DCP (at Attachment 7), as amended, and that the draft LEP be forwarded to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration) requesting that she make the draft LEP in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).

 

1.         LOCATION AND PLANNING CONTEXT:

 

The current planning controls for the town centre are contained in LEP 1998. These provide a blanket approach across the town centre via a 3A General Business Zone, permitting a range of retail, commercial and multi-unit housing development to a maximum height of 24 metres and a Floor Space ratio of 3:1.

 

A key aim of the review of the planning controls is to plan and provide for a sustainable long term future for Maroubra Junction town centre as the main commercial centre within Randwick City. The review also seeks to ensure the highest quality design of multi unit residential development within the town centre.

 

2.         BACKGROUND:

 

In January 2001 the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS), a business unit of Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, was engaged by Council to prepare an Urban Design Study of the Maroubra Junction town centre encompassing:

 

-           analysis of the existing built environment of the town centre;

-           development of urban design principles and guidelines for the centre;

-           2 public workshops (the first workshop focussed on opportunities and constraints facing the town centre, and preliminary controls were discussed at the second workshop)

-           development of built form controls, in particular the identification of the current and appropriate  future building envelope for each site; and

-           identification of public domain principles and improvements.

 

On May 8 2001, the Health, Building and Planning Committee noted the proposed building envelopes presented by UDAS and resolved that a draft DCP be prepared for the town centre.

 

The UDAS draft Urban Design Study was endorsed by Council for exhibition at its meeting on 11 September 2001. This study was exhibited together with a Commercial Centre Study of the town centre (prepared by economic consultant Peter Leyshon in April 2001), and a Position Paper (prepared by Council) outlining Council’s understanding of the key issues affecting the Maroubra Junction town centre.

 

1. Summary of Individual Submissions (under separate cover)

2. Interim Design Review Panel Comments

3. Core Area Map

4. Location map of Blocks 1-12 in the town centre

5. Map Showing 3 Rezoning Requests

6. Draft LEP/LEP map

7. Draft DCP (under separate cover)

8. Alteration to Block 10 Building Envelope (under separate cover)

The Commercial Centre Study identified a core area within the town centre (extending from Boyce Road in the north, Garden Lane in the south, Bruce Bennetts Place in the west and including the properties with primary frontage to Anzac Parade to the east), and recommended that planning initiatives reinforce the ‘core retail precinct’ within the town centre and promote the future development of commercial activity in this area. The study also suggested Council give consideration to encouraging the development of ‘live/work’ premises, particularly in the non-core area of the town centre.

 

Population characteristics of the Maroubra Trade Area (Maroubra Junction and surrounds) identified in the Commercial Centre Study include a population that was somewhat older than the Sydney Region average and a population with a higher proportion of lone person households (25.6%) compared with 22.1% in the Sydney Statistical Division (SSD). The area also had a higher proportion of group households (7.2%) compared with 4.6% in the SSD, which reflects the trade area’s proximity to the University of New South Wales. Household incomes in the trade area were below the Sydney Region average, with a slight overall rise in household income projected.

 

These demographic characteristics presented a generally positive future for the Maroubra Junction town centre in retail/commercial terms.

 

In June 2002, Council resolved to endorse the urban design study and prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for the Maroubra Junction town centre to effect any amendments to the zoning and planning controls in the town centre and peripheral land, in relation to the Urban Design Study and draft DCP proposals, including the rezoning of 3 minor areas of land as follows:

 

-           land at the south western corner of Anzac Parade and Shepherd Street (western side of Anzac Parade);

-           land bounded by Boyce Road, Garden Street and Green Street (western side of Garden Street); and

-           land at No. 1 and No. 3 Robey Street adjoining the Maroubra Junction Sub-station

 

The draft LEP and DCP provide a detailed place-based analysis of planning and design of the town centre. The draft plans replace the blanket floor space ratio (FSR) and height controls with building envelopes that have been designed to suit each individual block within the town centre, and to encourage high quality design within the town centre. The controls emphasise the junction of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road as the focus for future development. The importance of Anzac Parade as one of Sydney’s great streets is recognised and will be enhanced through the creation of a new town square in the core of the town centre.

 

The height controls under the draft plans recognise and reinforce the street hierarchy of the town centre with the maximum height along Anzac Parade, the main street, generally seven storeys, a maximum of six storeys along Maroubra Road, the main cross street, and a lowering of building heights to between three and five storeys at the edge of the town centre. The draft plans seek to enhance the quality of development in the town centre and lower rather than increase development potential.

 

Following the exhibition of the draft plans, the draft plans were reviewed. The key revisions made to the draft plans are outlined in the following sections.

 

3. DRAFT LEP – REVISIONS AT A GLANCE

 

Minor wording and grammatical changes were made to the draft LEP, as required by the Parliamentary Counsel opinion, which did not change its intent.

 

4. DRAFT DCP – REVISIONS AT A GLANCE

 

The key changes made to the draft DCP in response to Government agency requirements, Design Review Panel’s comments and submissions received are summarised below. Minor amendments have also been made to ensure consistency with SEPP 65.

 

-     Building Envelope (3.1.3) – Explanation Added To Clarify This Key Dcp Concept.

-     Performance Criteria And Layout Revised In Response To The Design Review Panel’s Comments

-     Minimum Building Separation Requirements (3.1.6) Added In Line With The Residential Flat Code To Enhance Amenity And Privacy.

-     Building envelopes (3.2 – Block-by-Block Controls) – adjustments made in response to submissions and to enhance building envelopes.

-     The maximum percentage fill of building envelopes reduced from 85% (commercial) and 80% (residential) to 80% (for commercial uses above the ground floor) and 70% respectively in response to the Panel’s comments and subsequent advice from UDAS.

-     Landscape design (4.1.3) and Open Space (4.1.4) – revised for greater clarity in response to the Design Review Panel’s comments and to strengthen the deep soil planting requirements.

-     Apartment layout (4.4.1) – performance criteria strengthened to include ESD, diagrams added for greater consistency with SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code and to encourage naturally ventilated (dual aspect) apartments.

-     Acoustic Privacy (4.5.1) – requirement for noise and vibration assessment added and performance criteria for noise attenuation (within/between apartments) strengthened in response to the RTA’s requirements.

-     ESD – Energy Efficiency (4.7.1) and Total Water Cycle Management (4.7.3) sections strengthened eg energy efficient hot water systems, rainwater tank and flood mitigation requirements.

-     Environmental Education information (4.7.5) requirement added (as introduced in the Bundock Street DCP).

 

5.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION:

 

An extensive consultation process has been undertaken throughout the draft LEP and DCP preparation process.

 

The draft LEP and DCP were publicly exhibited for 4 weeks from 13 November 2002 to 11 December 2002.

Public notification included notices in the local newspaper on 12 November and 19 November 2002.

 

A total of 1566 written notices were sent to landowners within and surrounding the town centre. The Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee and the Maroubra Chamber of Commerce were also sent written notices.

 

The draft plans were available for viewing at the Council’s Administration building, at Bowen Library and on Council’s website.

 

A public workshop was held during the exhibition period (5 December 2002). A separate meeting was also held with the Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee during the exhibition period (2 December 2002).

 

The National Trust’s Urban Conservation Committee was also briefed on the draft plans and was supportive of the overall vision for an improved town centre and the building envelope approach of the draft DCP. The Trust also supports efforts that may enhance Anzac Parade as one of Sydney’s grand boulevards.

 

6.         PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONSULTATION:

 

Public authorities were consulted on the draft LEP and DCP under S62 of the Act. The authorities consulted included the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the State Transit Authority (STA) and the (former) Department of Land and Water Conservation (now part of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR)).

 

Authority responses and steps taken to address relevant matters are summarised as follows:

 

RTA

 

The RTA supports the consolidation of development sites where possible, and the provision of a minimum 6 metre wide rear accessways to limit the number of direct vehicular access points on Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road.

 

The RTA suggested that Council implement car parking rates consistent with reducing traffic generation.

 

The RTA recommended that Council include a requirement for a noise and vibration assessment for any proposed residential located within 100 metres of a major arterial road.

 

Comment: The draft DCP has been amended to include a requirement for a noise and vibration impact assessment. It also includes performance criteria that relate to noise attenuation and locating noise sensitive uses away from any noise source. This is consistent with the requirements included in the Kensington town centre DCP at RTA request. The draft DCP requires underground parking and, where required, has already identified 6 metre (minimum) rear Right of Carriageways to provide vehicular access for properties fronting major roads within the town centre. Council’s Parking DCP is being applied to the town centre.

 

The RTA recommended the preparation of a Traffic Impact Assessment and incorporation of its findings in a Section 94 Plan.

 

Comment: Council is currently undertaking city-wide transport and parking studies, which will consider parking and transport issues in a comprehensive way. The transport study (Stage 2) was recently completed and will be reported to Council shortly. The parking studies are still underway. Council has also commenced a major review of its Section 94 Plan. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department is also undertaking a review of parking spaces within Maroubra Junction town centre. It is appropriate that any variation on parking standards and town centre public parking/traffic facilities be reviewed when these studies are completed and on an area-wide basis, with consideration to any State government requirements.

 

It is also noted that the draft LEP/DCP do not expand the development capacity of the town centre, and the transport/parking impacts are not expected to be the same as under the current controls.

 

STA

 

The STA commented on the lack of a specific LEP objective promoting transit-oriented development. The STA indicated that the amount of car parking allowed should reflect the high level of public transport services

 

Comment: One of the draft LEP’s detailed objectives for Maroubra Junction town centre include (g) ‘to ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in the town centre’. It is considered that this objective sufficiently addresses this matter and that an additional objective is not required.

 

Parking requirements for the town centre are contained in Council’s existing Parking DCP (see RTA comments above).

 

The STA commented that the bus stop locations are not shown in the DCP.

 

Comment: The draft DCP is not required to show bus stop locations, which may be subject to change at the STA’s discretion.

 

The submission noted that the issue of safety associated with promoting the central median on Anzac Parade as a green zone adjacent to the town square, pedestrian access and traffic flows must be carefully considered.

 

Comment: This will be addressed in any detailed design planning of the public domain and following detailed consideration of parking needs and management in the town centre.

 

The STA suggested that the draft DCP should encourage outdoor eating facilities or long hour commercial uses near bus stops to improve perceived safety and public transport use.

 

Comment: The draft DCP encourages active street frontages and building design that maximises safety of residents and pedestrians throughout the town centre. It does not preclude 24 hour operations at bus stops.

 

The STA noted that awnings play an important role in sheltering passengers at bus stops

 

Comment: The draft DCP (Section 4.6.1) incorporates requirements for awnings.

 

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

 

The draft LEP was referred to the Parliamentary Counsel, as required in the preparation of Local Environmental Plans. The Parliamentary Counsel has examined the draft LEP Amendment No. 33 and has given its opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made.

 

7.         DESIGN REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS:

 

In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Better Quality Design of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) the draft DCP was referred to Council’s Design Review Panel (The Panel). Clause 27 (c) of SEPP 65 identifies one of the functions of a Design Review Panel as providing independent advice to Councils on the design content of draft LEPs and DCPs, having regard to the design quality principles. The Panel’s comments are attached as Attachment 2 and are summarised below.

 

The Panel considered that 80-85% envelope fill was too high and recommended an envelope fill requirement of 75%.

 

Comment: the draft DCP has been amended – the maximum envelope fill permitted is 70% for residential floors in a development and 80% for commercial floors above the ground floor.

 

The Panel commented that the DCP is too long and could be reduced in length by deleting unnecessary repetition, and using a generic building section drawing in place of section drawings for each block.

 

Comment: In line with the Panel’s recommendation, the section diagrams for each block have been replaced with two generic section diagrams at the start of Section 3.2 – Block by Block controls.

The Panel commented that for some sites within the town centre (such as the Dudleys Corner heritage building), the perimeter block building envelope approach may not be the most appropriate.

 

Comment: the building envelopes have been reviewed and tested. Appropriate alterations to building envelopes have been made, as discussed later in Section 9. These alterations are minor.

 

Some Panel members suggested that the DCP include a requirement for a distinct architectural change for storeys above 2 storeys. It was also suggested that the storeys above two storeys be set back to give the street clear definition. However this suggestion was not supported by all Panel members.

 

Comment: the draft DCP aims to encourage built form with strong street edges and there is no requirement for upper levels to be setback. The draft DCP (Section 4.6.2), however, does include a requirement for building façades to have a defined base, middle and top that relates to the overall proportion of the building.

 

The Panel recommended that the DCP state that the building envelopes shown illustrate the absolute maximum envelope allowable, provided that all other criteria are satisfied.

 

Comment: This has always been the intention of the draft DCP, nevertheless, the draft DCP has been adjusted to further emphasise this (Section 3.1.3).

 

The Panel suggested the term ‘performance criteria’ be replaced with ‘controls’.

 

Comment: the draft DCP is a performance based DCP, and the term ‘performance criteria’ is the most appropriate term to describe the ‘controls’ or outcomes that development must satisfy. In many instances, there is no single solution, rather the performance criteria can be achieved in a number of different ways and applicants are required to demonstrate that the proposed development satisfies the performance criteria in the DCP.

 

The Panel commented that the DCP should include a requirement that open space design provide adequate shelter from wind and provide amenity through sunlight access to open space.

 

Comment: This requirement is included in Sections 4.1.3 Landscape Design and 4.1.4 Open Space of the draft DCP.

 

The Panel recommended that the deep soil zone section needed to be worded more strongly.

 

Comment: the performance criteria in the deep soil zone section of the draft DCP have been strengthened.

 

The Panel suggested attaching Council’s paving guidelines to the DCP.

 

Comment: Council’s paving guidelines for Maroubra Junction town centre exist as a separate document. Council’s paving requirements for new development within the town centre are attached as a condition of consent to development approvals, and have therefore not been attached to the draft DCP.

 

The Panel suggested a review of Council’s Section 94 Contributions for the town centre.

 

Comment: Council has recently commenced a comprehensive review of its Section 94 Plan, which will be addressing all town centres including Maroubra Junction. The Section 94 Plan applies townscape and parking rates for commercial development, and also open space and community facility rates for residential development, consistent with other town centres in Randwick City.

 

8.         SUBMISSIONS:

 

In response to the exhibition period, Council has received a total of 13 submissions (see Attachment 1 for a summary of each submission received and response to the issues raised).

 

9.         ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS:

 

Key issues raised in the submissions are summarised in Attachment 1. These issues are addressed below under the headings of GENERAL, DRAFT LEP and DRAFT DCP ISSUES. Any amendments made in relation to the submissions or further review work are also explained (unless minor, typographical matters of clarifications).

 

GENERAL ISSUE: CONSULTATION

 

Matters Raised in Submission:

The maze of laws and authorities provide a barrier to transparent consultation and good outcomes. Council should adopt the processes of PlanFirst for consultation.

C Greene – Maroubra Road

 

Comment:

The PlanFirst proposal involved a review of the current plan-making process and suggested a new integrated and place management approach to strategic planning where planning documents would address all issues. The PlanFirst process is currently under review by the State government. Council, however, has complied with all the statutory requirements in the preparation of the draft LEP and draft DCP. The preparation of these draft plans has also taken into account the recommendations arising from PlanFirst. The consultation process was supplemented by a public workshop during the formal exhibition of the draft plans. Details of the consultation process are provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.

 

GENERAL ISSUE: PUBLIC DOMAIN/ANZAC PDE

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Anzac Parade should be developed as a boulevard and the median should not be used for car parking.

C. Greene – Maroubra Road

 

Reinforcing the cultural and social significance of Anzac Parade (as on of Sydney’s grand boulevards) and “the Junction” is essential to the DCP

National Trust - Sydney

Comment:

The UDAS planning/design study identified this as a future opportunity to enhance the amenity of the town centre around the ‘core retail’ area. This idea will be further investigated as part of Council’s city-wide transport study and any future public domain works for the centre, in liaison with the relevant state government authorities, including the RTA.

 

GENERAL ISSUE: STORMWATER

 

Matters raised in submissions:

A report should be provided on cumulative effects of dewatering in the area, including drainage of seepage, and the capacity of the existing drainage system before further large scale development is allowed in Maroubra Junction.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

Comment:

The draft DCP contains performance criteria for stormwater management and flood mitigation, taking an integrated approach to water cycle management, rather than dealing with these issues in isolation. The draft DCP also identifies deep soil zones, and contains requirements for open space and soft landscaping which increase pervious surfaces and assist in stormwater management within the town centre.

 

Council’s on-site detention (OSD) requirements for new development within the town centre will be stipulated as conditions of consent. On-site detention reduces the stormwater discharge from the site into the existing draining system.

 

Maroubra Junction town centre is already zoned 3A General Business which permits commercial and residential development. The draft DCP is not increasing development potential within the town centre, and the maximum heights at the edge of the town centre are lowered under the draft plans. Lower maximum building heights, together with generous minimum floor to ceiling heights and minimum apartment sizes mean that fewer units can be squeezed on to sites. Fewer units will require fewer parking spaces and less basement excavation, thereby minimising stormwater impacts and the need for basement dewatering.

 

It is noted that not all development in Maroubra Junction town centre will require dewatering. Applicants will be required to submit a geotechnical report identifying whether development will involve excavation near or below the ground water table. Any development proposal involving excavation near or below the ground water level will be referred to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) for consideration. DIPNR will advise whether a temporary de-watering licence is required, and will specify any other requirements that may apply.

GENERAL ISSUE: MAROUBRA MALL

 

Matters raised in submissions:

No explanation is given for the function and location of a town square.

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

Opposed to the Maroubra Mall redevelopment and high rise development in Maroubra.

B Royle – Maroubra

 

No specific provisions were made for the aged when planning the town square. Concerned that the 1% of units in the approved Maroubra Mall development that are to be affordable housing will be sub-standard. Affordable housing should remain the responsibility of the NSW Department of Housing.

C Greene - Maroubra

 

Comment:

The town square is part of the Maroubra Mall development, which was approved by Council in November 2002. The town square is located in the core of the town centre, adjacent to Anzac Parade, and it will provide a much needed public domain for Maroubra Junction. The concept of the town centre was developed in consultation with UDAS’s preparation of the Urban Design Study. A town square in this location, providing a visual link across to Green Street (an intimate scale shopping and café lane) was included early in the study to expand green links and spaces in the town centre and particularly in the core retail area. Accessibility for all was a key issue in the design of the town centre and development of its content.

 

Although the Maroubra Mall development was approved prior to the completion of the draft DCP, the construction of all units within the development will be subject to the same design, quality, accessibility and environmental performance requirements.

 

The draft LEP and draft DCP propose no change to the current State government responsibilities and control of public housing, it simply provides for a small portion of dwellings to be set aside for low to medium income residents.

 

GENERAL ISSUE: DEMOGRAPHICS

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The demographics of the locality have not been identified. These need to be identified before an assessment of an appropriate residential mix can be assessed.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

Comment:

A demographic analysis was undertaken in the economic study of the town centre (Leyshon, April 2001). This, together with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2001 data, provided a sound basis for the review of the planning controls for the town centre. The draft DCP requires Development Applications to provide a mix of apartments, to provide for a range of household needs and sizes.

 

DRAFT LEP ISSUE: REZONING

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Creeping rezoning to commercial to allow higher residential rezoning in the 2A residential area is not acceptable. Questioned why the sites adjacent to Shepherd Street and Boyce Road are to be rezoned and commented that Mason Street should be rezoned from 3A General Business to 2A Residential.

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

It appears that commercial zoning is being created to allow high rise residential development. More residential development in the town centre will not necessarily mean more business for the commercial centre.

E & E Lyon – Maroubra

 

Comment:

The 3A General Business zone already permits residential development within the town centre. Under DCP 15, a 24 metre height limit and an FSR of 3:1 applies across the town centre. Under the current provisions of Randwick LEP 1998, residential development is permissible with consent in the 3A General Business zone. The draft plans amend the maximum building height limits within the town centre, lowering it to between three and five storeys at the edges of the centre. The draft DCP reduces the amount of development permitted within the town centre and instead seeks to increase the quality and amenity of new development. The draft DCP identifies the number of stories that are to be commercial/retail to ensure a mix of commercial and residential uses are provided, and that commercial/retail uses are consolidated in the core of the town centre.

 

The draft plans are based on an urban design study and an economic study of the town centre. Neither of these studies recommended that any part of the town centre be rezoned 2A Residential. The commercial centre study noted that the existing commercial zoned land was sufficient. Three minor rezonings were made in the draft LEP where these provided a logical definition of the town centre to a clear boundary.

 

Consistent with State government “Compact City” initatives, Council is encouraging new residential development within established town centres with good access to public transport such as Maroubra Junction and Kensington.

 

Specific Rezoning Requests raised in Submissions

The owners of numbers 2 and 4 Wise Street requested that they be rezoned from 2B Residential to 3A General Business.

N Lambert (2 Wise St) – Maroubra; S Chan (4 Wise St) – Maroubra

 

The owners of number 4/950 Anzac Parade requested that this property be rezoned from 2A Residential to 3A General Business.

S & A Pangus – Maroubra

 

Comment:

All 3 properties lie outside the town centre boundary (refer to Attachment 4) to the south, and an expansion of the town centre to the south is not considered economically viable, and would be contrary to the findings of the Commercial Centre Study and the aims of the draft plans.

 

Numbers 2 and 4 Wise Street are off Anzac Parade and are separated from any commercial development and Anzac Parade by a church. They are surrounded by land zoned 2C to the south and 2B to the west, with 2A land further afield to the west.

 

Number 4/950 Anzac Parade is a unit within a block that is wholly zoned 2A Residential, with 2A land further afield to the south and east. Higher density residential zonings for these sites were considered as an alternative to the 3A General Business zoning which is not appropriate. However, this would have little or no impact on the development potential of these sites.

 

DRAFT LEP/DCP ISSUE: BUILDING HEIGHT CONTROLS

 

Matters Raised in Submission:

The effect of Clause 42D (5) in the draft LEP refers to controls contained in the DCP, making them mandatory. This is “inappropriate planning” and not in accordance with modern planning. It is unnecessary to have both a storey and maximum building height control.

M Tobias – Maroubra

 

The DCP should show maximum heights of buildings, not maximum number of storeys.

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

Comment:

The existing height controls for Maroubra Junction town centre are contained in LEP 1998 and DCP 15. The draft LEP continues to include height controls for the town centre.

 

The draft DCP takes a place-based approach in line with DIPNR’s initiatives such as PlanFirst, and the Residential Flat Design Code. These controls have been identified  in a thorough building envelope review and are thus appropriate to include in the LEP to provide an appropriate balance of certainty and flexibility. The use of height is noted in the Residential Flat Design Code as an important control.

 

A maximum height control (in metres) has been included to allow flexibility (of floor to ceiling heights above the minimum requirements, and the potential to include mezzanines), whilst still controlling the maximum allowable height throughout the town centre. Without a maximum height control in metres it would be possible to have, for example, a mezzanine level in one or more storeys, making the building exceed the desired allowable height for that number of storeys. This is to ensure that future developments would comply with the number of storeys and maximum height requirements.

 

The draft LEP/DCP contains a table that has both height (in metres) and storey controls, and clearly relates maximum height in metres to the maximum number of storeys.

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: BUILDING HEIGHT

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The existing tall buildings in the town centre core dominate Maroubra Junction and should not be copied. There should be no buildings over 4 stories in the town centre.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

Building heights will lead to over-population in an area with parking problems, lack of privacy and sunlight, lack of sufficient open space, increased noise from balconies and loss of amenity to residences adjacent to the town centre.

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

The draft DCP does not divulge what increase in floor space or apartment numbers are sought by Council. The draft DCP should be prepared in conjunction with a review of zoning. There are large differences between building heights in the centre, which could be reduced by creating a transition zone.

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

Comment:

The draft LEP/DCP review was undertaken primarily to enhance design outcomes, ensure a sustainable commercial future and to recognise the centre’s role of providing housing in an accessible location. The draft DCP sets a framework of allowable building heights and envelopes, which seek to ensure development is acceptable. The draft DCP focuses the higher building heights along Anzac Parade and in the core retail area, with lower heights along Maroubra Road.

 

The draft DCP proposes a reduction in height at the edges of the town centre to create a transition zone ranging in height from 3-5 storeys, which is considered to be a reasonable transition between the town centre and the adjacent residential areas.

 

The building envelopes in the draft DCP illustrate the absolute maximum envelope allowed subject to all other criteria (such as open space and building separation) being addressed. The draft DCP also contains performance criteria that address acoustic privacy, balcony design, and landscape design and amenity.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: BUILDING ENVELOPE DEPTH

 

Matters Raised in submissions:

Building envelopes extending around the perimeter of each block may actually reduce rather than increase development potential. Suggested that the building envelope depths set at 12-15 metres should be increased in appropriate locations.

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

Concerned that the deep soil zone at the rear will substantially reduce development potential of the property (1-3 Robey Street, Block 9). Suggested that the vehicular accessway and deep soil zone should be combined to allow more of the site to be developed.

J Zouroudis & D McNamara – Maroubra Road

 

Comment:

The draft DCP has not been developed to increase the development potential; instead it encourages high standards of development around the perimeter of the blocks within the town centre to create strong, active street edges. Maximum building depths have been restricted to allow maximum opportunity for cross ventilation and natural light penetration in buildings, to minimise overshadowing of neighbouring properties (both within and adjacent to the town centre), to ensure adequate building separation, and to ensure that part of the site is open space to provide amenity, outlook, privacy, and pervious surfaces within the site.

 

It is noted that the narrower building envelopes generally occur south of Maroubra Road at the periphery of the town centre, where allotments are typically narrower and lower building heights are permitted. The building envelopes have been re-tested as part of the draft DCP review process and some minor adjustments to building envelope depth have been made.

 

Deep soil zones are areas that are not to be built upon and are not to have underground car parking below. This allows for an area of deep, soft soil for substantial deep rooted vegetation. A deep soil zone cannot be used or combined with an accessway. The draft DCP also requires that communal open space comprise a minimum of 25% of the total site area (4.1.4 Open Space).

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: EXTENT OF TOWN CENTRE/COMMERCIAL ZONE

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The commercial zone should be reduced to the “retail core” identified in the Leyshon Commercial Centre Study.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

The proposed commercial areas extend too far from the central shopping area, which will result in additional vacant premises.

E & E Lyon – Maroubra

 

Comment:

The draft LEP proposes a minor adjustment of the 3A General Business zone boundary. The draft plans aim to encourage a vibrant and active town centre and a continued mix of uses within the town centre. The draft plans apply to land within the existing 3A General Business zone at Maroubra Junction. In line with the recommendations of the Commercial Centre Study, the draft DCP encourages a concentration of retail uses within the core area of the town centre and provides flexibility at the edges of the centre to reduce any commercial component of development, and in some instances, optional commercial/residential ground floor uses are proposed. This will address the current planning requirements for the same proportion (FSR) of commercial development regardless of location within the town centre.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: SEPP 65

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The draft DCP should be checked for consistency with SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code.

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

The future development of dwellings should be subject to the residential zone criteria, regardless of whether they are in a commercial zone or a residential zone.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

Comment:

The draft DCP was being prepared by UDAS at the same time SEPP 65 was being prepared. Following the exhibition period, the draft DCP has been reviewed and it is consistent with the design principles contained in SEPP 65. It contains guidelines and performance criteria specifically for residential development within the town centre, recognising that most development in the town centre has and will continue to be mixed use (a mix of commercial/retail and residential uses).

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: HERITAGE

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The heritage significance of Dudleys Corner and the Maroubra Junction Hotel should be respected. These buildings should not be dominated or overshadowed. Adjoining buildings should be 4 storeys in heights and should complement the architectural features and integrity of the heritage listed buildings.

C Greene - Maroubra

 

Comment:

The buildings envelopes for Dudleys Corner, the Maroubra Junction Hotel and the adjacent sites have been designed with regard to the heritage significance of these buildings.

 

The corner of Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade is the key intersection in Maroubra Junction. In the vision workshop held in 2001, participants identified that Maroubra Junction needed a stronger identity and needed to be made a ‘junction” again. Part 2 of the draft DCP outlines the broader urban strategy for the town centre on which the more detailed guidelines and controls are based. The draft DCP provides a balance between enhancing the ‘Junction’ and ensuring the heritage values of these buildings are maintained.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: TRAFFIC AND PARKING

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Traffic is a problem.

B Royle – Maroubra

 

Maroubra Junction’s traffic problems will become worse.

The DCP should include plans for future public transport facilities such as a bus/train interchange or light rail, and a taxi rank.  Over population will create increased traffic and parking problems. Car spaces in existing developments is insufficient. Reducing car parking spaces will not encourage people to use public transport.

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

A bus terminal is needed for Maroubra Junction.

The traffic lights at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road should be rephased to reduce traffic congestion.

E & E Lyon - Maroubra

 

The draft DCP should be withheld until a traffic/parking forum has been held.

Anzac Parade should be developed as a boulevard and the median should not be used for car parking. All units in the commercial zone should have individual car spaces.

C Greene – Maroubra

 

Comment:

Maroubra Junction town centre has a high level of accessibility to public transport. The draft DCP requires developments to comply with Randwick City Council’s Parking DCP. Council’s Parking DCP requires developments to include commercial parking for customers and visitors, and loading/servicing areas, as well as residential parking for units and visitors (Residential: 1 space per 1 bedroom, 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling and 1.5 spaces per 5 bedroom dwelling; Business: 1 space per 40m² gross floor area). Council’s parking requirements are generally higher than those of the RTA. All new developments will need to provide an analysis of traffic impacts of their proposals.

 

The draft DCP is not a detailed traffic study, and issues such as traffic light phasing and bus interchanges fall outside the scope of a DCP. Traffic and parking issues are being investigated as part of the city-wide transport study, and related investigations. One of the key interim findings of this study is that car parking in Maroubra Junction town centre is relatively under utilised (56%) during peak periods (1-3pm weekdays).

 

In response to the suggested parking forum raised by participants at the public workshop in December 2001, Council resolved to undertake a review of parking spaces within the Maroubra Junction town centre. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department is currently undertaking this review of parking spaces, which will include consultation on parking issues. In response to recommendations of the city-wide Transport Study and any outcomes of Council’s review, changes to Council’s Parking DCP may occur, which will affect parking requirements for Maroubra Junction town centre.

 

The DCP does not impose any requirements that would inhibit future interchanges/public transport efficiencies.

 

This suggestion also needs to be reviewed in the light of comments made by the RTA and the STA, which support a lower rate of parking in areas with a high level of access to public transport.

 

Council is supportive of increased accessibility to public transport along Anzac Parade and all its commercial centres, as well as the introduction of various public transport modes.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: LANE WIDENING

 

Matters raised in submissions:

A number of lane and street widenings are shown in the draft DCP. Is there an overall centre access study explaining and justifying these changes?

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

Future corner developments on narrow streets should allow for road widening.

E & E Lyons – Maroubra

 

Comments:

All provisions for lane widening are in accordance with Council’s existing Subdivisions Policy, which identifies streets and lanes subject to road widening. The draft DCP has been prepared with regard to this policy.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: DEEP SOIL ZONES

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Deep soil zones will be overshadowed by tall buildings, particularly in winter. Questioned how Council will enforce the maintenance of these deep soil zones.

Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

Comment:

The provision of deep soil zones helps reduce the area of impervious surfaces, assists with management of runoff and allows for the planting of mature trees. The deep soil zones identified in the DCP will form part of individual development sites and will be the responsibility of the relevant strata plan/owners corporation.

Issues raised that are specific to individual blocks in the town centre are discussed below. A map showing the location of Blocks 1-12 within the town centre is included as Attachment 4.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: Block 1

[Shepherd St to Gale St, western side of Anzac Parade]

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The Bowen Library footprint is shown incorrectly in the DCP. In the draft DCP, the building envelope for 667 Anzac Parade incorrectly shows a side setback from the boundary with Bowen Library.

 

Maximum building envelope depth should be increased to allow buildings to the built up to the 6m rear vehicular accessway.

 

The draft DCP shows vehicular access to 665 and 667 Anzac Parade by way of Rear Right of Carriageway via Shepherd Street. If 667 Anzac Parade was redeveloped, could the existing vehicular access off Anzac Parade to this property be used?

J Musgrove – Maroubra

 

Comment:

Noted. The library footprint in draft DCP has been corrected. Bowen Library is built to the northern side boundary and the DCP has been adjusted to show a zero side setback for 667 Anzac Parade from the library, to allow for a strong, consistent building frontage to Anzac Parade.

 

Building depth has been restricted to maximise opportunity for cross ventilation, outlook, and daylight access, and to allow for the provision of communal open space on site. The adjoining land to the rear (west) of 665-7 Anzac Parade is outside the town centre and it is important to ensure adequate building separation and to allow for a landscape buffer between the town centre and the surrounding residential development.

 

Whilst the vehicular access to 667 Anzac Parade is an existing access point from Anzac Parade, the RTA would be unlikely to approve the intensified use of the existing access. The draft DCP makes provisions for a rear Right of Carriageway from Shepherd Street to provide vehicular access to 667 and 665 Anzac Parade.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: Block 4

[Gale Rd to Mason St, western side of Anzac Parade]

 

Matters raised in submission:

No explanation is given for the presence of a single low building on Anzac Parade in Block 4.

M Neustein – Bondi Junction

 

Comment:

Noted. The draft DCP has been revised to include an explanation of and objectives for each block. The ‘low-scale’ building envelope on the north-eastern corner of Block 4 has been reviewed and tested. It was exhibited with a 7 storey corner component and a 2 storey component along Anzac Parade. The building envelope now comprises a 3 storey component fronting Anzac Parade with a 6 storey component along Mason Street. This building envelope has been designed to minimise the impact on the existing 8 storey strata building (701-705 Anzac Parade) adjacent to the south, which has balconies facing north and set along the common boundary between the two sites.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: Block 5

[Alma Rd to Boyce Road, eastern side of Anzac Parade]

 

Matters raised in submissions:

There is currently a zero front and side setback for 116 Boyce Road, however the draft DCP requires a 3m front setback and a 1.5m side setback (providing for a landscape buffer) on the western side (current building is built to the western boundary).

 

The deep soil zone at the rear of this property does not take into account the generous depth (approximately 40 metres) of this lot, and the building envelope depth is limited to 22 metres.

 

116 Boyce Road currently has 2 levels of commercial, however the draft DCP only allows 1 level of commercial, with residential above, which is opposed. This is inconsistent with the site opposite on the southern side of Boyce Road.

 

Draft DCP does not indicate an option to amalgamate with adjacent lots.

B & K Yung – Boyce Road, Maroubra [Block 5]

 

Comment:

The 3 metre front setback requirement in the draft DCP is to achieve a building alignment that is more consistent with the remainder of Boyce Road, which is characterised by detached dwellings.

 

The draft DCP has been amended so that a zero side setback on the western boundary for this property is now required. The 1.5 metre landscaped buffer strip has been relocated to the rear of the properties fronting Anzac Parade in this block, so that a landscaped buffer can still be achieved between these sites.

 

It is noted that this allotment is relatively deep, however, maximum building depths have been restricted in the draft DCP to achieve better design outcomes, and to ensure opportunity for the provision of private and communal open space and deep soil planting.

 

The draft DCP allows 1 floor of commercial for 116 Boyce Road because it is close to the edge of the town centre and fronts Boyce Road rather than Anzac Parade. The building on the opposite side of Boyce Road fronts Anzac Parade and is within the core retail area of the town centre, and two floors of commercial uses are considered appropriate for that site.

 

The draft DCP requires a minimum 20 metre street frontage or dual street frontage for the provision of vehicular access. Whilst the draft DCP does not identify any specific  amalgamation  requirements in this block, it does provide for amalgamations generally and Council will consider proposals involving amalgamation of sites within the town centre.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: Block 7

[Boyce Rd to Green St, eastern side of Anzac Parade]

 

Matters raised in submissions:

The maximum envelope depth for developments along Green Street should be at least 18 metres. One part is only 15 metres deep.

Council should allow developers to build a basement driveway, which would allow access to buildings fronting Green Street from Boyce Road, which would minimise access points along Green Street

S Chen – 30 Green Street, Maroubra

 

Comment:

The maximum building envelope depths along Green Street (in this block) generally provides a maximum depth of 18 metres. It is noted that there is only one narrow building envelope (maximum depth 15 metres) at the eastern end of Green Street that can only be used if it and adjacent sites are amalgamated.

 

Regarding better access, the draft DCP has been amended to include a requirement for lots with frontage to both Boyce Road and Green Street to provide vehicular access from Boyce Road only. This will assist in encouraging Green Street as a quiet shopping/café laneway.

 

DRAFT DCP ISSUE: Block 10

[Maroubra Road to Wise Street, western side of Anzac Parade]

 

Background:

The southern-most lot in this block is 817 Anzac Parade (art deco style flats), and is listed as a heritage item in Randwick LEP 1998. The exhibited draft DCP showed the 5 storey building envelope along Anzac Parade extending across the front of No. 817, with the 3 storey building envelope along Ferguson Street extending across the rear of the property.

 

Upon reviewing the building envelopes in this block after the exhibition period, the proposed 5 storey envelope on No. 817 was not considered to be appropriate given the heritage listing of this building. The envelope was adjusted so that No. 817 remains as it currently exists (a 2 storey building fronting Anzac Parade), with no envelope at the rear of the property. The building envelope immediately north of No. 817 was lowered from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to create a better transition with this heritage item.

 

A late submission (Neustein Rosenberg – Bondi Junction, received 30 September 2003) requested Council consider reinstating the 3 storey building envelope at the rear of No. 817. The submission argued that 3 storey development at the rear of this property would not detract from the heritage significance or visual appearance of the existing building on site from Anzac Parade, due to the siting of the existing building and lower ground level at the rear of the property. The submission also emphasised that any new development at the rear of No. 817 would be subject to a heritage impact statement to ensure that any future built form respects the significance of the heritage item.

 

Comment:

It is considered that a 3 storey envelope at the rear of No. 817 would not detract from the heritage significance or appearance of this heritage item from Anzac Parade. This building envelope would allow a consistent street frontage along Ferguson Street, and a 1.5 metre side setback would minimise the impact of development on the adjoining properties to the south (outside the town centre). The draft DCP (page 80) has been amended to show a 3 storey building envelope at the rear of No. 817 Anzac Parade with 1.5 metre side setbacks. The draft DCP notes that if the rear of No. 817 was to be amalgamated with the property adjacent to the north, (No. 815 Anzac Parade), then a zero side setback on the northern side may be considered.

 

An amended page 80 showing this alteration is attached as Attachment 8.

 

CONCLUSION:

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations. The provisions of S.66 and S.67 of the Act have been complied with in relation to public involvement in the preparation of the draft LEP. The draft LEP is consistent with all State Environmental Planning Policies, Regional Environmental Plans and Ministerial Directions under S.117 of the Act and the S.71 Determination have been taken into consideration. The draft DCP has also been prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulations and relevant State policies and guidelines.

 

The draft LEP and DCP have been developed with the benefit of previous and current investigations of the Maroubra Junction town centre, to provide a comprehensive approach to all opportunities and constraints for future land uses and development. The draft LEP and DCP provide consistencies with the approach and controls of the Kensington town centre LEP/DCP in adopting a place-based detailed analysis and consistency with SEPP 65 and the NSW Residential Flat Code. The draft LEP/DCP are now considered to provide a best practice approach to achieving a long-term vision for the Maroubra Junction town centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

(a)        Endorse the draft Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No. 33) for Maroubra Junction town centre and agree to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for Planning requesting that the draft LEP be made;

(b)        Adopt the draft Development Control Plan 2003 for Maroubra Junction town centre, to commence in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation upon public notification of the LEP gazettal and DCP commencement date; and

(c)        Agree that the Director, Planning and Community Development may make minor 1 modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical and formatting errors if required, in the finalisation and printing of the DCP.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Summary of Individual Submissions (under separate cover)

2. Interim Design Review Panel Comments

3. Core Area Map

4. Location map of Blocks 1-12 in the town centre

5. Map Showing 3 Rezoning Requests

6. Draft LEP/LEP map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Draft DCP (under separate cover)

8. Alteration to Block 10 Building Envelope (under separate cover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Draft DCP (under separate cover)

8. Alteration to Block 10 Building Envelope (under separate cover)

 

………………………………

………………………………………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MONICA COLOGNA

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR PLANNER

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 


 
 

                               Interim Design Review Panel

                        Draft Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

                                           2nd June 2003.

 

 

Attendees: Mr David Chesterman, Mr Stephen Davies (Chair), Mr Paul Gerlach, Mr Philip Thalis, Ms Kerry Clare.

 

Item 8.      Consideration of Draft Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP

 

Panel Comments:

 

-     Suggested street trees be incorporated into footpaths along Anzac Parade, possibly through greater setback of buildings to create wider footpaths. A 3m building setback along Anzac Parade was suggested, to create footpaths 6m wide. (It is noted that the average footpath width of Anzac Parade in the town centre is 3.8-4m).

-     Considers 80-85% envelope fill is too high and recommend 75% envelope fill

-     Suggested that a requirement for a distinct architectural change for the storeys above the first two storeys be included in the DCP, with the bottom two storeys having greater solid to void (wall with windows), and storeys above set back. It was commented that the town centre is a 2-3 storey scale, and that setting back buildings above the second storey would give a clear definition to the street. It was suggested that a setback of 2 metres for building facades above 2 storeys throughout the centre (except at corners) should be considered (it is noted that not all panel members were in agreement with this suggestion).

-     The DCP is too long and could be reduced in length by deleting repetitive sections

-     Suggested having 1 generic building section and deleting all the other section diagrams as they are repetitive. Also noted that the car parking sections may be unlikely to work in all cases and it would be better to delete sections and replace with a single generic one.

-     Suggested that Part 2 Background and Urban Structure should actually be 2 separate sections

-     Recommended that the term ‘performance criteria’ be replaced with the term ‘controls’.

-     Commented that the use of envelopes and perimeter block development throughout the town centre is undifferentiated, and that some sites (such as Dudleys Corner) should perhaps have a few different envelope options.

-     Recommended that the DCP clearly state (up front and throughout) that the building envelopes show the absolute maximum allowable, provided that all other criteria are satisfied.

-     Commented that the photos of existing buildings within the town centre be replaced with photos/images of what the town centre could be.

-     Suggested that the section on Deep soil planting needs to be worded more strongly.

-     DCP should require that open space design provide adequate shelter from wind and provide amenity through sunlight access to open space.

-     Suggested that the shadows cast by the building envelopes be modelled to test the amenity of open spaces

-     Suggested attaching Council’s paving guidelines to the DCP. Also suggested that the town centres along Anzac Parade have consistent treatments (eg paving, trees etc).

-       Suggested a review of Council’s Section 94 Contributions for the town centre.

-     Suggested that the section on Deep soil planting needs to be worded more strongly stating that the landscape design of open space areas must make provision for the planting of medium to large trees within deep soil zones.

In addition to the suggestion that there should be a few different envelope types investigated for some sites such as Dudley's corner, the envelopes could be considered in relation to existing large strata buildings that probably will not be changed in the foreseeable future.  The new buildings may be able to 'repair' existing problems to some extent. 


 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 81/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Sydney Airport Masterplan - Randwick City Council submission

 

 

DATE:

2 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5057

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council has received the draft Masterplan for the future land uses and development of the Sydney Airport site. The master plan is on public exhibition for a 90-day period from 1st August 2003 to 29 October 2003. Submissions on the Master plan close on 29th October 2003. A separate report outlines and discusses the key issues and concerns arising from this draft Master plan, and provides a draft submission for Council’s endorsement.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the recommendations contained in the separately circulated Director of Planing and Community Development’s Report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report on the Sydney Airport Masterplan (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED PRIOR TO THE HEALTH, BUIIDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KAREN ARMSTRONG

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A/MANAGER